garcia dissertation 2014 - texas state university

TEACHER AND PARENT BELIEFS AND EXPECTATIONS OF PARENTAL

INVOLVEMENT AND HOW IT RELATES TO STUDENT

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

by

Jennifer Nichole Garcia, BA, MEd

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of

Texas State University in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

with a Major in School Improvement

December 2014

Committee Members:

Robert F. Reardon, Chair

Michael D. Boone

John A. Oliver

Paul Stewart

COPYRIGHT

by

Jennifer Nichole Garcia

2014

FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT

Fair Use

This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553,

section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the copyright Laws, brief quotations

from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for

financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed.

Duplication Permission

As the copyright holder of this work I, Jennifer Nichole Garcia, authorize duplication of

this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only.

DEDICATION

As an educator I quickly learned that when schools and families work together to

reach a common goal, a positive relationship is formed that results in student

achievement and a high quality learning experience on both sides. I dedicate this work to

the students, parents, teachers and administrators I have worked with throughout my

teaching and administrative career. They have inspired me to want to strive to make a

positive change in our community and schools. Our students are the future of our world.

From this perspective, I aim to serve others and help them excel in education. This

dissertation study was conducted to help further the development of parental involvement

research and to promote a school family and community partnership in schools.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Chair: Dr. Reardon- I will forever be grateful for your knowledge and

commitment to my study and your continuous support at every stage of my

doctoral career. Your guidance and caring nature will always encourage me to

remember what it means to help and support people.

Committee Members: Dr. Michael Boone, Dr. John Oliver, Paul Stewart- Thank

you for your guidance, dedication, commitment to my study, teaching and

training. I am a better researcher and leader because of you. This work would

certainly not exist without you. Dr. Oliver, your words of wisdom shared

reminding me to “Enjoy the journey” when it comes to writing my dissertation

were instrumental in my ebb and flow of living. While completing my doctoral

work was at times an arduous process, remembering to “enjoy the journey”

helped me understand the possible impact my research could have and how this

time is an incredible opportunity and experience in my life and it’s important to

remember these moments.

Advisors: Dr. Gail Ryser, Dr. Larry Price- Thank you for helping me implement

the foundational pieces of my study.

Central Office: Dr. Crook, Dr. Canales, Dr. Bley- Thank you for allowing me to

conduct my study and your ongoing encouragement throughout my doctoral

journey.

vi

Mentors: Laurie Jurado, Sami Kinsey, James Cruz- Thank you for being great

models, servant leaders! You enabled me to promote positive relationships in

school. Your mentorship also encouraged, supported and motivated me to

continue my learning and further my studies and my career.

Family: Father- Carlos Garcia, Uncle Louis, Brothers and Sisters- Kevin, Amber,

Casey, Austin Garcia and Shelby Spoon- Thank you for your support.

Family: Aunts- Oralia Dominic and Gracie Guidry- Thank you for raising and

supporting me my whole life. Both of you have modeled what it means to be a

good person and to keep giving even when you have nothing left. I learned to do

the right thing, at the right time and for the right reason because of your guidance.

Special thank you to my Aunt Lala for guiding and supporting me throughout this

process and never giving up on my dream. You paved the way for me to follow in

your footsteps of leading by example and accomplishing the most out of life.

Thank you for all of your prayers and guidance, without you I would not be where

I am at today. Thank you for making me a better person.

Family: In loving memory of my grandparents, Miguel Massiatte Garcia and

Maria Teresa Arocha Garcia laid the foundational values for our entire family and

emphasized the importance of education. Thank you for instilling in me the

determination, perseverance and commitment needed to reach my educational

goals. I am a better person because of you both.

vii

Support: In loving memory of my Toy Poodle Margarita Garcia, thank you for

always being there. She was with me throughout my high school, college years

and during my professional career. Her smile, affection, and greeting each time

she saw me was so comforting to me. Working on my dissertation was always a

little easier with her by my side. I lost her this past summer, a few months prior

to graduation, but I know she is looking down and proud of this accomplishment.

Support: Libby Belasco, Paige Collier, Luis Flores- Thank you Libby for helping

me with all aspects of my study and guiding me through the process. Thank you

Paige for being a great friend to me and always willing to offer advice anytime.

You showed me that it is possible “to do it all.” Thank you Lou for being a

supportive friend and always taking the time to listen and be helpful throughout

this process.

Support: Michael Dayer- Thank you for being by my side through the ups and

downs and for always believing in me. Your support and continuous

encouragement served to remind me that “I can do anything I put my mind to.”

Support: Johanna and Baltazar Peral- Thank you for always being a great listener

and for your life long friendship.

Central Office, Principals, Students, Parents, and Teachers- Thank you for the

wonderful opportunity to conduct my study and supporting me throughout this

dissertation work. I express my deepest gratitude to all the teachers, students and

viii

parents who participated in this study. This work would certainly not exist

without your. I am hopeful that this work contributes to the field of parental

involvement research.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. xv

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ xvi

CHAPTER

I. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ................................................................. 1

Background ................................................................................................ 1

Parental Involvement and School, Family,

Community Partnerships (SFCP) ....................................... 3

Benefits and Concerns of a Parent’s Involvement ......................... 5

Epstein’s Six Types of Involvement for a SFCP ....................................... 8

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................... 9

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................ 11

Significance of the Study ......................................................................... 12

Epstein’s Parental Involvement Framework ................................ 13

Theoretical Perspective ................................................................ 13

Social Structures ...................................................................................... 16

Methods.................................................................................................... 18

Analytical Strategy....................................................................... 18

Assessments ................................................................................. 19

Independent and Dependent Variables ........................................ 19

Sample.......................................................................................... 20

Parental Involvement and Academic Achievement Data ............ 27

Definition of Terms.................................................................................. 28

Assumptions and Limitations .................................................................. 29

Organization of the Remainder of the Study ........................................... 31

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................. 33

x

Introduction .............................................................................................. 33

Historical Overview of Parental Involvement ......................................... 33

Civil Rights Movement (1960s)................................................... 34

Economic Opportunity Act (1960s) ............................................. 34

State and Federal Programs (1960s to 1980s).............................. 35

The Head Start Program............................................................... 36

Title I ............................................................................................ 41

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) ............................................. 42

Criticisms of NCLB Act .............................................................. 42

National Education Goals Report (1995) ..................................... 47

National Education Goals Report (2011-2014) ........................... 49

Factors Related to Teachers’ Beliefs and Expectations of Parental

Involvement ................................................................................. 50

Socio-cultural Background .......................................................... 50

Teacher and Student Mismatch .................................................... 52

Teacher Composition ................................................................... 52

Teacher Attitudes and Practices ................................................... 53

Cultural Capital ............................................................................ 55

School Environment..................................................................... 57

Teacher Barriers of Engaging in Parental Involvement ........................... 58

Communication Between Teachers and Parents

and Language Barriers ..................................................... 59

Teacher Time Management ......................................................... 60

Teacher Training of Parental Involvement Initiatives ................. 61

Response to Teacher Barriers ...................................................... 62

Teacher Expectations and How They Relate to

Reading Achievement .................................................................. 65

Factors Related to Parents’ Beliefs and Expectations

of Parental Involvement ............................................................... 68

Parent Beliefs and Expectations............................................................... 69

Attitudes and Practices ............................................................................. 70

Barriers of Parental Involvement ............................................................. 73

Education ..................................................................................... 73

Socioeconomic Status of Families ............................................... 74

Gender and Family Structure ....................................................... 78

Race/Ethnicity .............................................................................. 83

Summary of Parental Involvement Barriers ................................ 86

Parent Expectations and Reading Achievement ...................................... 86

Epstein’s Framework for a SFCP ............................................................ 88

Epstein’s Six Types of Parental Involvement .............................. 89

xi

Type 1: Parenting ............................................................. 89

Type 2: Communicating .................................................. 90

Type 3: Volunteering at school ........................................ 91

Type 4: Learning at home ................................................ 92

Type 5: Decision-making ................................................. 93

Type 6: Collaborating with the community ..................... 94

Limitations of Epstein’s Framework ........................................... 99

Summary .................................................................................... 101

III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 103

Introduction ............................................................................................ 103

Overview of the Analytic Method ......................................................... 104

Key Terms .................................................................................. 107

Population and Sample .............................................................. 108

Sampling Protocol/Procedures ................................................... 109

Data Source ................................................................................ 110

Variables in the Study ................................................................ 110

Variable Measurement Characteristics ...................................... 111

Instrumentation ...................................................................................... 113

Teacher Survey Description ....................................................... 113

Parent Survey ............................................................................. 115

Reliability and Validity of Instruments...................................... 118

Reliability of Teacher Survey .................................................... 120

Reliability of Parent Survey ....................................................... 121

Content Validity of Surveys....................................................... 122

State of Texas Assessments of Academic

Readiness (STAAR)....................................................... 129

Data Screening ....................................................................................... 131

Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 133

Summary ................................................................................................ 133

IV. CONCLUSIONS/DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................. 135

Results .................................................................................................... 135

Quantitative Analysis ............................................................................. 144

Research Questions and Description of Results .................................... 147

Demographic Variables ......................................................................... 157

Parents’ Expectations and Parents’ Level of Education ............ 157

Parents’ Beliefs and Parents’ Level of Education ...................... 158

xii

Parents’ Beliefs and Parents’ Age.............................................. 158

Parents’ Expectations and Parents’ Age .................................... 158

Qualitative Data ......................................................................... 158

Teacher Survey .......................................................................... 159

Parent Survey ............................................................................. 162

Findings and Limitations ........................................................... 165

V. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 168

Qualitative Findings ............................................................................... 170

Recommendations and Further Research ............................................... 174

Conclusion ............................................................................................. 177

APPENDIX SECTION ...................................................................................... 179

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 214

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Student Sample (Number of Students) of the District by

Grade Level .................................................................................................... 21

2. Student Sample (Percentage of All Students) of the

District by Grade Level .................................................................................. 22

3. Student Sample by Ethnicity (Number of Students) ...................................... 22

4. Student Sample by Ethnicity (Percentage of All Students) ........................... 23

5. Student Sample by Socioeconomic Status (Number of Students) ................. 23

6. Student Sample by Socioeconomic Status (Percentage of All Students) ...... 24

7. Teacher Sample by Schools Based on Ethnicity (Number of Teachers) ....... 24

8. Teacher Sample by Schools Based on Ethnicity (Percentage of

All Teachers) .................................................................................................. 25

9. Teacher Sample by Sex (Number of Teachers .............................................. 25

10. Teacher Sample by Sex (Percentage of All Teachers) ................................... 26

11. Teacher Sample by Level of Teaching Experience (Number

of Teachers) ................................................................................................... 26

12. Teacher Sample by Level of Teaching Experience (Percentage

of All Teachers) ............................................................................................. 27

13. Measures of Parental Involvement and Attitudes ........................................ 127

14. Parent Surveys ............................................................................................. 136

15. Teacher Surveys ........................................................................................... 136

xiv

16. Teacher Sex .................................................................................................. 137

17. Teacher’s Ethnicity, Hispanic-Yes or No .................................................... 137

18. Teacher’s Level of Education ...................................................................... 137

19. Teaching Experience .................................................................................... 138

20. Teacher School Tenure ................................................................................ 138

21. Parent’s Sex ................................................................................................. 139

22. Parent’s Ethnicity, Hispanic-Yes or No ....................................................... 139

23. Number of Parents in the Household ........................................................... 140

24. Parent’s Race ............................................................................................... 141

25. Parent’s level of Education .......................................................................... 142

26. Parent’s Age ................................................................................................. 142

27. Measures of Central Tendency, Dispersion and Symmetry ......................... 147

28. Spearman’s rho Correlation Coefficients..................................................... 149

29. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients .............................................................. 156

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Bhaskar’s Three Domains of Reality ..................................................................15

2. Critical Realism and Parental Involvement ........................................................18

3. Definitions of Epstein’s Six Types of Parental Involvement ..............................96

4. Sample Practices for Epstein’s Types of Parental Involvement .........................97

5. Teacher Beliefs .................................................................................................145

6. Teacher Expectations ........................................................................................145

7. Parent Beliefs ....................................................................................................146

8. Parent Expectations ...........................................................................................146

9. Teacher Beliefs Survey Items (Questions 1-18) ...............................................148

10. Teacher Expectations Survey Items (Questions 19-36) ....................................150

11. Parent Expectations Survey Items (Questions 22-46) ......................................152

12. Parent Beliefs Survey Items (Questions 1-21) ..................................................154

13. Teacher Responses ............................................................................................159

14. Parent Responses ..............................................................................................162

xvi

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between

teachers’ and parents’ beliefs and expectations of parental involvement and the

achievement of students in three title I elementary schools. Methods: Using the School

and Family Partnership Surveys of Teachers and Parents in the Elementary and Middle

Grades (Epstein & Salinas, 1993), teachers and parents at each of the three elementary

schools completed survey questions to attain their beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement based on Epstein’s framework of Six Types of Involvement for a School,

Family and Community Partnership. Results: Results: A total of 1, 205 consented student

(n=579), parents (n=579), and teachers (n=48) participated in this study. For each sample

type (i.e. student, parent, teacher), N= 579 students and parents and N=48 teachers

provided consent to participate in the study. The correlational analysis revealed that

although there were no significant relationships between parents’ and teachers’ beliefs

and expectations of parental involvement and student achievement, a parent’s level of

education was related to their expectations of parental involvement and their child’s

achievement. The qualitative findings of this study indicate that parents and teachers find

that the most important form of parental involvement is communication and after school

trainings for parents. These findings could help inform parental involvement efforts

targeting Title I elementary schools.

1

I. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

The focus of this study investigated the beliefs and expectations teachers and

parents had in regards to parental involvement and its relationship to a student’s

academic achievement. This introductory chapter provides an overview of: (1) the

reported links between parental involvement and student academic achievement where

involvement is within a school, family and community partnership (SFCP) framework;

(2) parental involvement discussed in a SFCP setting; (3) gaps in the literature with

respect to parental involvement by teacher and parent expectations and student academic

achievement and (4) relevance of the dissertation work, details and rationale of the study.

More specifically, it will include the following sections related to this dissertation work:

background, statement of problem, purpose of the study, definition of parental

involvement, significance of the study, theoretical framework, research questions,

analytic strategy, description of participants and sample, methodology, definition of

terms, assumptions and limitations and an explanation of the organization of the

remainder of the study.

Background

Teachers employ a variety of approaches to enhance student learning. Working

with parents to augment student support through higher levels of parental involvement is

one effective approach. Research demonstrates that students whose parents are interested

and involved in their education are more likely to (a) earn higher grades and scores on

state assessments, (b) graduate, and (c) pursue a postsecondary education – regardless of

income, ethnicity or background (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Behaviorally, they (a) have

higher levels of intrinsic motivation and self-esteem, (b) attend school regularly, (c) adapt

2

to school well, and (d) have a positive attitude (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). However,

despite this link between parental involvement and academic achievement and well-

being, there continues to be a gap in levels of parental engagement and involvement of

parents at the school and in the home.

For decades, reform efforts have been implemented at the state and national level

to help minimize and eventually close the achievement gap between culturally,

linguistically and economically diverse (CLED) students and their white counterparts.

Many of these efforts such as 21st century grants, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Title I

and Head Start have aided in the development of creating equitable learning opportunities

in classrooms, however, many schools and their districts continue to have students from

CLED backgrounds fail to meet state or national expectations of academic achievement

based on state assessment scores (National Center for Education Statistics, [NCES],

2011).

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 provides funding for additional

educational assistance for students from economically distressed backgrounds to increase

their academic progress. Recognizing the importance that families and communities play

in a child’s success, Section 1118 of the Act contains a “parental involvement”

component for schools. The law mandates that federally funded school districts

implement effective parental involvement initiatives in their schools to develop and

implement programs, activities, and procedures to increase parental involvement (NCLB,

2002).

This mandate has prompted school districts to analyze their parental involvement

strategies for two purposes. First of course, districts need to confirm their practices

3

comply with federal funding requirements. Second, districts are undertaking research into

the academic benefits that families and communities can offer when they are involved in

the education of their students. The inclusion of a parental involvement component

recognizes that students learn through a variety of educational and social contexts and

academic achievement can best be achieved through the development of a partnership

between parents, families and communities (Willems & Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). This

calls for school districts to use initiatives that ensure the most effective methods for

involving parents in the school are implemented. Developing a partnership dynamic to

bring the school, family and community together in support of students has proven to be

one of the most effective approaches to develop effective and supportive relationships

between these groups. A key factor to support this initiative is the understanding of what

teachers and parents believe about the importance of parental involvement in their

students’ education and what their respective roles and expectations are for engagement

initiatives.

Parental Involvement and School, Family, Community Partnerships (SFCP)

The four components of this partnership include: (a) the school, (b) the family, (c)

the community, and (d) the student (Epstein et al., 2009). Within these relationships

parents play a major role in contributing to and supporting their child’s academics.

Teachers play a role in working with parents and engaging them in greater support of

their students. Together the school, community and family work together to develop a

parent’s involvement in their child’s education. Traditionally, the term parental

involvement has defined how a parent supports their child’s education. Recently,

however researchers have developed a broader term for the collaborative efforts between

4

school, family and community partnerships (SFCP). For the purposes of this research

study, these terms may be used interchangeably. Both SFCP and parental involvement are

comprehensive approaches that encompass the concept of a “partnership” (Epstein et al.,

2009). Parent involvement within a SFCP is a partnership where families, educators and

community members share a responsibility for the student’s achievement both

academically and developmentally (Epstein et al., 2009). SFCPs are linked to positive

results in schools across a variety of demographics (Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, &

Davies, 2007). This type of relationship has been especially effective with students from

culturally, linguistically and economically diverse communities (Guerra, & Nelson,

2009). It is well documented that when schools establish partnerships with their

community members, resources can be aligned and shared to produce successful students

and engaged families (Blank, Jacobson & Melaville, 2012; Semke, & Sheridan, 2012;

Shumow, & Miller, 2001). In SFCPs, the focus is to develop the whole child

academically, behaviorally, social-emotionally and to increase access to opportunities for

parental involvement through collaborative efforts between the school and its community

members (Albright & Weissberg, 2010; Lines, Miller, & Arthur-Stanley, 2010). SFCPs

are distinct from other models of involvement of parents which focus on specific roles

and instead emphasize bidirectional relationships between families and schools by

improving student outcomes through the creation of a “cross-system” of supports across a

variety of settings (Barley & Beesley, 2007; Henderson & Mapp, 2002). SFCPs empower

parents to understand the importance of their role in supporting their child’s learning in

ways that mirror the dynamics of the community.

5

Benefits and Concerns of a Parent’s Involvement

Henderson et al., (2007) found that the stronger the relationship between families,

communities and schools, the more student achievement increases. James P. Comer

(1998) posits that the central cause of poor achievement is the result of schools failing to

bridge the social and cultural gap between home and school. Schools that engage in

community-based initiatives are more likely to consider issues in social and political

perspectives, and to understand the contexts within which situations occur (Henderson &

Mapp, 2002). This leads to a better understanding of the root cause of issues, and is more

likely to result in tailored solutions (Guerra, 2010).

In addition, when schools demonstrate they value the opinions of parents and

communities by responding to their concerns, they tend to be highly successful in

supporting student achievement and improvement initiatives (Chrispeels, 1996). The

extant literature on SFCPs also suggests that parent social capital, levels of self-efficacy

and participation in a variety of academically relevant events tend to increase as well

(Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Findings are similar for both teachers and students, showing

improvements to instruction and curriculum, leading to improved test scores and

teachers’ sense of self-efficacy while students are more likely to perceive learning

material as relevant to both their culture and lives.

Schools that implement effective family programs they tend to have higher levels

of parental involvement (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Sheldon, 2005; Sheldon & Van

Voorhis, 2004). In addition, Karther & Lowden (1997) found that involving parents in a

student’s education benefits the entire school community. When parents are engaged and

involved with their child’s education, students benefit both academically and

6

developmentally. In terms of academics, students with parents that are involved in their

education have higher grades, test scores, school attendance, graduation rates, (Michigan

Department of Education, 2001), homework readiness and educational aspirations

(Rumberger, Ghatak, Poulos, Ritte, & Dornbusch, 1990). Developmentally, students may

experience increased motivation, better self-esteem, higher levels of self-efficacy and

positive attitudes (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991), lower rates of suspensions, decreased

use of drugs and alcohol, and fewer instances of violent behavior (Michigan Department

of Education, (2001). In addition, improvements in children’s sense of well-being and

self-efficacy, attitude, attendance rates and school achievement are evident (Greenwood

& Hickman, 1991).

Because a parent’s involvement can provide support to children academically,

many schools have and continue to find effective ways of increasing their level of family

involvement (Davies, 2002). These reported findings suggest that schools should fully

understand the contributions of the relationship of a SFCP and find effective ways to

sustain and improve these partnerships.

Parent involvement in a SCFP in children's learning at school and at home is

considered a key component of a child’s academic achievement (Henderson et al., 2007).

However, more information is needed on (a) the beliefs and expectations of parents from

culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse communities of parental involvement,

(b) teachers’ beliefs and expectations of parental involvement and (c) how those possibly

different sets of beliefs and expectations ultimately relate to a child’s performance. When

expectations are harmonized, a SFCP can begin to develop fully. Although benefits of

parental involvement have been reported (Albright & Weissberg, 2010; Chrispeels, 1996;

7

Epstein, 2010; Henderson et al., 2007), it is still challenging to implement effective

initiatives, especially in CLED areas. This may be due to actual or perceived barriers

such as differences in expectations between parents and teachers from different cultural

backgrounds (Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006). Another challenge may be varying

definitions of parental involvement.

For over 30 years, it has been reported that well-coordinated and organized

parental involvement programs, such as SFCPs, are a critical component in implementing

successful parent involvement efforts (Epstein & Becker, 1982). Moreover, positive

family and school relationships yield better outcomes when compared to initiatives that

are isolated from one another (Epstein, 2010). The challenge for school districts lies in

discovering what the expectations, attitudes, and beliefs of both parents and teachers alike

prior to designing and implementing a SFCP (Fullan, 1993). Another challenge for school

districts involved in educational reform is a clear understanding of the parent

involvement component of NCLB in order to ensure programs conform to federal

requirements. This is crucial to enable districts to make informed decisions aimed at

improving parental involvement initiatives. Districts that continually fail to meet student

achievement expectations will be required to undertake reform efforts to address the

achievement gap. Many of these reform efforts can be accomplished and supported by

developing and strengthening school and family partnerships and school infrastructures

(Epstein et al., 2009).

SFCPs recognize that all stakeholders including parents, educators and

community members share a responsibility in a student’s learning and development.

SFCPs are a multidimensional concept constructed on a framework of six types of

8

involvement that were developed through the research efforts of Epstein (2009). The Six

types of involvement improve the school’s partnership climate and increase student

success (Epstein et al, 2009). This framework can guide schools in designing, developing

and improving a partnership initiative that contributes to successful schools and students.

Epstein’s Six Types of Involvement for a SFCP

Traditionally, schools and the students and families they serve have been viewed

as two separate entities with distinct roles. However, there is an increasing number of

students from non-traditional, culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED)

communities whose backgrounds call for schools to develop a collaborative approach to

increase academic success by sharing the responsibility of a child’s achievement and

development among the family, school and community (Guerra, & Nelson, 2009).

The purpose of the Six Types of involvement for a SFCP is to “improve schools’

partnership climate and to increase student success” (Epstein et al., 2009, p. 57). The

concept of Epstein’s Six Types of Involvement is a multidimensional approach that

identifies six specific types of involvement for schools to use to improve the

collaboration between parents and schools in a multitude of ways that supports students.

Epstein’s Parental Involvement Framework has been readopted by the National Standards

for Family-School Partnerships (2007). The foundation recognizes her research as

foundational for these nationwide standards. Epstein’s (2010) six types of parental

involvement are:

o Type 1- Parenting (helping families establish supportive home

environments)

9

o Type 2- Communicating (establishing two-way exchanges about school

programs and children’s progress)

o Type 3- Volunteering (recruiting and organizing parent help at school,

home or other locations)

o Type 4- Learning at Home (providing information and ideas to family

about how to help students with homework and other curriculum-related

materials)

o Type 5- Decision Making (having parents from all backgrounds serve as

representative and leaders on school committees)

o Type 6- Collaborating with the community (identifying and integrating

resources from the community

Each of these types of involvement supports three approaches or spheres,

influencing parental involvement: (1) family, (2) school, and (3) community (Epstein et

al, 2009). Lower levels of interaction between these three spheres results in less support

for students, and produce lower observed levels of a SFCP (Epstein et al., 2009). Within

this framework, relationships between the school, families and community exist to

establish the most effective ways to involve parents so they work together in a

partnership to implement effective strategies.

Statement of the Problem

Despite many reform efforts in schools, disparities continue to exist among

student achievement (Henderson et al., 2009). A disconnect exists between what schools

do to establish parental involvement initiatives with culturally, linguistically and

economically diverse (CLED) communities and the actual involvement of parents

10

(Bartel, 2010; Holcomb-McCoy, 2010). This suggests that the options for involvement

presented to these parents may not meet their needs and wants. One common example of

this mismatch is when a school offers parent meetings during the day when parents are

working. This lack of understanding can hinder the level of support a student receives

both at home and school. The relationship between what teachers and parents believe

about how each should be involved in parental involvement initiatives is not well

researched. A possible explanation for why schools report low involvement from parents

may result from differences between teachers and parents regarding the parents’ role

(Epstein, & Becker, 1982). Gaining an understanding of what teachers and parents

believe about their respective roles in a SFCP can help bridge this gap.

There is a limited amount of research about the beliefs and expectations teachers

and parents have relative to family involvement, as well as schools’ expectations for the

level of parents’ involvement in their child’s education, particularly in CLED

communities. Therefore, there is a need to improve our understanding of the relationships

between these groups and the impact that greater harmony in expectations relative to

involvement can have on academic achievement (Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006; Trask-

Tate, & Cunningham, 2010; Watkins, 1997). In addition, studies examining teacher and

parent beliefs and expectations and their relationship to student academic achievement

are either lacking or remain unpublished.

There is an extensive amount of literature on the barriers that CLED parent’s

experience (Chavkin & Williams, 1987; Dauber and Epstein, 1993; Miretzky, 2004;

Jacobson 2005). Nonetheless, there is a research gap in our understanding of how schools

11

respond to this reality and how they develop their parental involvement component per

the NCLB requirement (NCLB, 2002).

Purpose of the Study

Identifying beliefs and expectations of parents and teachers about parental

involvement remains an area not well known in the field of research. However, research

is crucial in the development of effective parental involvement initiatives (Abdul-Adil &

Farmer, 2006). The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the beliefs and

expectations teachers and parents have regarding how parents should be involved in their

child’s education, as well as the schools’ expectation of their own role in involving

families and the community. As schools increase their understanding of the varying

beliefs and expectations they begin to develop the necessary skills and knowledge to

form a SFCP. Schools that understand the teachers’ and parents’ beliefs and expectations

of parental involvement are more likely able to understand and implement best practices

to involve families.

This study also analyzed how these beliefs and expectations, based on Epstein’s

Six Types of Involvement, relate to student academic achievement in three Title I

elementary schools, located in central Texas. The specific objectives of this study were

twofold: (1) to examine existing beliefs and expectations sets for both parents and

teachers relative to parental involvement in three Title I elementary schools located in

central Texas and (2) how these beliefs and expectations correlate to a student’s academic

reading achievement based on the Reading State of Texas Assessments of Academic

Readiness exam (STAAR). This is important not only because teacher and parent

12

attitudes are linked to academic achievement, but also because a better understanding of

these factors can offer insight into developing and sustaining a successful SFCP.

Significance of the Study

There are eight notable reasons for conducting this study. First, this study includes

feedback from teachers and parents about their beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement, which may contribute, and guide current and future action plans to improve

parental involvement initiatives. Second, this study helps the schools involved in the

study to continue to strategically deploy parental involvement strategies for the

betterment of their schools. Third, the results of the study provides administrators and

teachers with the information needed to conduct tailored professional development

training opportunities aimed at improving parental involvement and establishing a SFCP

in their school. Fourth, the results of this study provide teachers and the district with new

knowledge and skills (tools) needed to engage parents for supporting their student’s

academic achievement (and overall well-being). Fifth, this study provides an opportunity

for one academic institution and three local Title I schools serving students from CLED

backgrounds to work together and identify potential strategies aimed at developing parent

involvement initiatives among this population. Sixth, recommendations for improving

school-parent partnerships and relationships are provided. Seventh, correlational data

relating to the relationship between a teachers’ beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement and a student’s reading STAAR score are reported and thus may be used to

support student achievement initiatives. Lastly, the conclusions from this study may

contribute to the existing body of knowledge and future studies in the field of education.

13

Epstein’s Parental Involvement Framework

Epstein’s three approaches, or spheres, influencing parental involvement

illustrated by the internal and external models will serve as the theoretical framework for

this study. The foundation of Epstein’s Types of Involvement involves three components:

(1) family, (2) school, and (3) community (Epstein et al., 2009). These components

support the six types of parental involvement, which include: 1) parenting, 2)

communicating, 3) volunteering, 4) learning at home, 5) decision making, and 6)

collaborating with the community. The less interaction that occurs between these three

spheres, the less a student is supported, and the lower the level of parental involvement

that are observed (Epstein et al., 2009). Further, these spheres involve two models,

external model and the internal model (Epstein et al., 2009). The external model

recognizes that the three major areas where students develop the family, school and

community, can be pushed together or pulled apart (Epstein et al., 2009). Within this

external model, the six types of involvement represent practices in which the school,

family and community work together to support the child. The internal model recognizes

the patterns, types of involvement and interactions that are created at the individual

(parent or teacher) and the institutional (school wide event) levels. In addition the internal

model shows where and how interpersonal relationships occur within the three spheres.

Theoretical Perspective

This study employs critical realism as the theoretical approach. Critical realism, a

philosophy of the human sciences, was developed by Roy Bhaskar and provides a

philosophical navigation tool for researchers investigating critical social scientific inquiry

(Egbo, 2005). It posits that the experiences of research participants are “valid social

14

scientific data which lead to consequential social transformations” in a specific entity

(Bhaskar, 1989, p. 277). Critical realism seeks to “empower these participants by

legitimizing their voices and subsequently developing theory through the data that were

generated from those voices” (Egbo, 2005, p. 274)

From an anthropocentric perspective, Bhaskar (1989) contends that one cannot

investigate the world apart from one’s knowledge of the world. From this theory, critical

realism emerged as a combination of two previously developed theoretical perspectives

that Bhaskar advanced: (1) transcendental realism (a philosophy of science- “All of our

experiences and all of our knowledge are structured in time and space” and separate of

our seeking knowledge (Danermark, Ekstrom, Jakobsen & Karlsson, 1997, p.97), and (2)

critical naturalism (a social science which seeks to identify the mechanisms producing

social events). Critical realism posits that reality exists independently of human

observers, and all events, experiences, and understandings arise out of conditions and

influences (Kurki, 2007). Further, it seeks to investigate particular social structures to

identify gaps or problems within the organization in order to offer potential solutions

(Egbo, 2005).

Philosophically, this social science provides a meta-theory (a theory devised to

analyze theoretical systems) that addresses both ontological (the world as it is) and

epistemological (the world as we know it) elements. As such, this theory provides the

structures, entities and mechanisms that make up the social world (Bhaskar, 1989;

Collier, 1994). Kurki (2007) posits that epistemological and ontological views exist

independently from one another and that all experiences and understandings delineate

from the context within a social structure (Kurki, 2007). Within critical realism are three

15

main dimensions or layers of reality that can be used to explain why certain structures or

realities may exist (Danermark, et al., 1997; Egbo, 2005) (See figure 1.1).

1. The real represents underlying mechanisms, which are the structures that

cannot be seen or observed only speculated and may have causal powers.

2. The actual are the events and behaviors caused by the mechanisms in the real

and we can observe what things do.

3. The empirical are the observable actual experiences based on our senses or

perceptions, this is the position of the individual then making a speculation

about the real based on observation.

Bhasker’s Three Domains of Reality

Domain of real

Domain of

actual

Domain of

empirical

Mechanisms

Events

Experiences Figure 1: Bhaskar’s Three Domains of Reality (Bhaskar, 2008, p. 2)

This proposed stratified reality simultaneously exists and interacts between the

experiences, events, and structures, which create them (Bhaskar, 2008). The aim of

critical realism within this investigation is to uncover the underlying mechanisms of how

parental involvement exists and is established among parents and teachers and how these

mechanisms shape our decisions about engaging in parental involvement initiatives (See

figure 2). Within the critical realist perspective and this study, participants (teachers and

parents) are viewed as social scientific constituents who guide social transformations

(Egbo, 2005) and therefore the aim is to transform and enhance the practices of involving

parents and supporting students in order to establish a SFCP. Thus, influencing the belief

systems (real) that will impact and develop practices (actual) and shaping the speculation

16

(empirical). Understanding the mechanisms of teachers’ and parents’ beliefs and

expectations of parental involvement may influence what is actually experienced,

perceived and practiced and may provide knowledge about the types of involvement

teachers and parents believe are effective so that tailored and effective parental

involvement initiatives may be implemented.

Furthermore, findings from this study provides information as to which types of

involvement are lacking or need to be implemented to improve support of academic

achievement, building a knowledge base for potential solutions. The aim is to use the

contextual social data to help bridge the gap between ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ (Egbo,

2005). Within this study ‘knowing’ represents the beliefs and expectations of both

teachers and parents and the resulting impact on student achievement, while ‘doing’

corresponds to the response or action taken to improve the relationship between the

school, family and community partnership dynamic.

Social Structures

Social structures depend on members of society as their practices continue to have

the same structures (Bhaskar, 1989). As discussed in the next chapter, many

generalizations are made about parents and students from CLED communities but in

order to address prevailing deficit views, educators must challenge their beliefs and think

critically as to how to best engage parents with the aim of supporting student

achievement and development.

Through the transformation model of social activity, Bhaskar contends that while

individuals don’t create society, they do reproduce and transform it and that individuals

must be responsive to their practices. It is through our actions that we can begin to

17

transform and change an existing structure. Thus, the individuals within these structures

are able to consciously reflect upon, and changing, the actions that construct them

(Bhaskar, 1989)

Bhaskar (2008) also posits that our emotional connections to past changes

produce unconscious action. With this belief the hope is that through the knowledge

gained from this study, schools and districts alike may provide tailored approaches and

have a better understanding of which practices are best utilized in their community now

and in the future. It is through this awareness and under this condition that current

structures of parent involvement may begin to develop.

Critical realism provides a structure to investigate parental involvement beliefs

and expectations and their relation to student achievement through the priority it

designates to real-life experiences, social structures and individual interpretations (Egbo,

2005). These social constructs have been grounded in the theoretical frameworks of

Epstein’s Six Type of Involvement framework and correlational methodology.

18

Critical Realism and Parental Involvement

Figure 2: Critical Realism and Parental Involvement

Methods

Analytical Strategy

To examine the beliefs and expectations of parents and teachers about parental

involvement and how it relates to student academic achievement, this study utilized a

quantitative correlational study design. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) (V.18) (Chicago, Illinois, 2009) software was used for descriptive analyses of

socio-demographic, survey data and assessment scores.

Correlational research examines the relationship between two or more

quantitative variables and their implications for cause and effect within a natural

occurring phenomenon such as in a school-educational setting (Fraenkel & Wallen,

2009). The aim of correlational research is to investigate the degree to which one or

more relationships exist within a study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). This type of research

is used to help researchers make predictions about relationships of variables based on

data and evidence and causality cannot be inferred, only the degree in which a

Empirical

A speculation about the ‘real’ based on observation Based on the actual experiences of PI one can make speculation

about the real.

Actual

Events caused by the mechanism in the real Actual Practice by Teachers and Parents;

Student Achievement

Real

Underlying mechanisms Expectations and Beliefs about Parental Involvement.

19

relationship exist (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). Contrast to experimental research study

design, the scores for variables are only measured without any manipulation of any

variable in order to measure if a relationship exists within its natural setting (Fraenkel &

Wallen, 2009). The following sections discuss the associated variables in this study.

Assessments

A correlational analysis model was used as the analytic tool for this study. The

independent variables are the teachers’ and parents’ beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement. The dependent variables consist of the students’ achievement scores on the

reading state assessment.

Data for determining whether or not a significant correlational effect exists

between parental and teacher beliefs and expectations of parental involvement and

student achievement were analyzed using a Likert-like scale survey based on Epstein’s

Framework of the Six Types of Parental Involvement Model (listed previously) and

assessment scores. In the following section, the demographic variables relating to each

participant (teachers, students) are described.

Independent and Dependent Variables

The independent variables the beliefs and expectations teachers and parents

possess based on the six types of Epstein’s Parental Involvement Types (Parenting,

Communicating, Volunteering, Learning at Home, Decision Making and Collaborating

with the Community). The dependent variables consist of student’s achievement scores

on the reading state assessment in grades 3-5. In the following section, the variables

relating to each participant are described.

20

For teachers: Race/ethnicity (White, non-Hispanic, Hispanic/Latino, African

Americans, and other), sex (male and female), age (years), level of education (total years

completed), and teaching experience (total of years of teaching), and number of years at

their school. Variables were assessed to determine if these factors act as moderators

within the model in the relationship between a teachers’ beliefs and expectations of

parental involvement and student achievement.

For parents: Race/ethnicity, sex (male and female), level of education (total years

completed), family structure (single parent, both parents, grandparents), and age (years).

These variables will also be assessed to determine if they act as moderators of what

parents’ beliefs and expectations of parental involvement are.

For students: Race/ethnicity (White, non-Hispanic, H/L, AA, and other), sex

(male and female), grade level and student achievement scores on the Reading STAAR.

Sample

Eligible participants for this study included 3rd

– 5th

grade teachers, students and

their parents from three selected Title I elementary schools located in Central Texas.

The potential convenience sample size from the three schools included n=1,028 students,

n=1,028 parents, and n=49 teachers for the 2013-2014 academic school year. Of these, a

total of 1, 206 consented students (n=579), parents (n=579) and teachers (n=48)

participated in the study. This collection of data was drawn from a purposeful sample in a

predominately rural district in the state of Texas. The 5A rated district, named District

123 ISD, consisted of 14 total schools: one high school, three middle schools, eight

elementary schools, and two alternative schools.

21

Within the district, three schools: School 1 Elementary, School 2 Elementary and

School 3 Elementary were used for this investigation. Based on the District Student

Enrollment Fact sheet in 2012-3013 (TEA, 2014), the population from which the sample

was drawn from consists of 11,300 students, and of these students 10,018 are classified as

economically disadvantaged. The following tables (1 - 12) report demographics for the

district population and each of the three schools sampled for both students and teachers.

The demographics are described in the following 12 Tables: Tables 1 and 2: Student

sample numbers and percentages respectively by grade level and school; Tables 3 and 4:

Student sample numbers and percentages respectively by Ethnicity by school; Tables 5

and 6: Student sample numbers and percentages respectively by socioeconomic status by

school; Tables 7 and 8: Teacher sample numbers and percentages respectively by

Ethnicity by school; Tables 9 and 10: Teacher sample numbers and percentages

respectively by sex by school; and Tables 11 and 12: Teacher sample numbers and

percentages respectively by the level of teaching experience by school.

Table 1

Student Sample (Numbers of Students) of the District by Grade Level

Number of Students

Grade Level District School 1 School 2 School 3

Elementary 3rd

922 106 116 143

Elementary 4th

934 91 116 113

Elementary 5th

817 87 115 99

Note. *Calculated based on *Calculated based on the TEA: TAPR 2012-2013

22

Table 2

Student Sample (Percentage of All Students) of the District by Grade Level

Percentage of All Students

Grade Level District School 1 School 2 School 3

Elementary 3rd

8.1% 14.0% 14.9% 18.4%

Elementary 4th

8.3% 12.0% 14.9% 14.5%

Elementary 5th

7.2% 11.5% 14.8% 12.7%

Note. *Calculated based on the TEA: TAPR 2012-2013

Table 3

Student Sample by Ethnicity (Number of Students)

Number of Students

Race/Ethnicity District School 1 School 2 School 3

American

Indian 24 4 2 1

African

American 1,222 78 5 80

Asian 69 10 1 1

Hispanic 9,295 631 671 648

Pacific Islander 5 1 1 0

White 674 29 90 37

Two or More

Races 128 4 9 12


23

Table 4

Student Sample by Ethnicity (Percentage of All Students)


Race/Ethnicity District School 1 School 2 School 3

American

Indian 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1%

African

American 9.9% 10.3% 0.6% 10.3%

Asian 0.6% 1.3% 0.1% 0.1%

Hispanic 82.1% 83.4% 86.1% 83.2%

Pacific

Islanders 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

White 6.0% 3.8% 11.6% 4.7%

Two or More

Races 1.1% 0.5% 1.2% 1.5%


Table 5

Student Sample by Socioeconomic Status (Number of Students)

Number of All Students

District School 1 School 2 School 3

Economically

Disadvantaged 10,018 724 702 733


24

Table 6

Student Sample by Socioeconomic Status (Percentage of All Students)


District School 1 School 2 School 3

Economically

Disadvantaged 88.85% 95.6% 90.1% 94.1%


Table 7

Teacher Sample by Schools Based on Ethnicity (Number of Teachers)

Number of Teachers

Ethnicity District School 1 School 2 School 3

American Indian 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

African American 32.9 2.0 3.0 1.0

Asian 10.9 0.0 1.0 0.0

Hispanic 236.9 21.8 24.9 9.0

Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

White 486.1 25.8 23.0 39.4%

Two or more 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


25

Table 8

Teacher Sample by Schools Based on Ethnicity (Percentage of All Teachers)

Number of Teachers

Ethnicity District School 1 School 2 School 3

American Indian 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

African American

4.2% 4.0% 5.8% 1.0%

Asian 1.4% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0%

Hispanic 30.3% 44.0% 48.0% 18.2%

Pacific Islanders 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

White 62.2% 52.0% 44.3% 79.7%

Two or more 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Table 9

Teacher Sample by Sex (Number of Teachers)

Number of All Teachers

Sex District School 1 School 2 School 3

Male 179.7 10.0 9.9 4.0

Female 602.2 39.7 42.0 49.4


26

Table 10

Teacher Sample by Sex (Percentage of All Teachers)

Percentage of All Teachers

Sex District School 1 School 2 School 3

Male 23.0% 20.1% 19.0% 8.1%

Female 77.0% 79.9% 81.0% 91.9%


Table 11

Teacher Sample by Level of Teaching Experience (Number of Teachers)

Number of All Teachers

Level of Experience District School 1 School 2 School 3

Beginning Teacher 74.8 1.7 1 6.6

1-5 years 315 16 16 23.8

6-10 years 166.9 12 15.9 8

11-20 145.7 17 11 6

Over 20 years 79.4 3 8 5

*Calculated based on *Calculated based on the TEA: TAPR 2012-2013

27

Table 12

Teacher Sample of Level of Teaching Experience (Percentage of All Teachers)

Percentage of All Teachers

Level of Experience District School 1 School 2 School 3

Beginning Teacher 9.6% 3.4% 1.9% 13.4%

1-5 years 40.3% 32.2% 30.8% 48.1%

6-10 years 21.4% 24.1% 30.6% 16.2%

11-20 18.6% 34.2% 21.2% 12.1%

Over 20 years 10.2% 6% 15.4% 10.1%

*Calculated based on the TEA:TAPR 2012-2013

Parental Involvement and Academic Achievement Data

The parental involvement beliefs and expectations were evaluated through Likert

scaled surveys administered to teachers and parents based on Epstein’s validated

framework and additional demographic variables. Surveys for teachers were

administered electronically with an individualized code. Parent surveys were

administered by paper and pencil and were given an individualized code. The state

standardized test titled, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)

in Reading was used as a factor in academic achievement. STAAR data was derived from

Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR) and the percentage of students that passed

the STAAR test was calculated. Data from the Reading STAAR was drawn from grades

3, 4 and 5. The STAAR test is only administered for grades 3-5 for measures of academic

achievement. Therefore, kindergarten through 2nd

grade were excluded since they do not

have state standardized test reporting.

28

Definition of Terms

Academic Achievement. Achievement on the reading portion of the STAAR test

for grades 3-5.

Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR). Formerly known as the The

Academic Excellence Indicator System; An annual report that complies performance data

and information of students, their school and district (TEA, 2012a).

Parental Involvement. Defined by Epstein’s (et al., 2009) Parental Involvement

Framework, parental involvement consists of six types, which involve a partnership

between the school, family and community taking an active role to create an educational

learning environment for students (Epstein et al., 2009).

Involvement includes the following types:

Type 1: Parenting: Helping all families establish supportive home environments

for children.

Type 2: Communicating: Establishing two-way exchanges about school

programs and children's progress.

Type 3. Volunteering: Recruiting and organizing parent help at school, home, or

other locations.

Type 4. Learning at home: Providing information and ideas to families about

how to help students with homework and other curriculum-related

materials.

Type 5. Decision-making: Having parents from all backgrounds serve as

representatives and leaders on school committees.

29

Type 6. Collaborating with the community: Identifying and integrating resources

and services from the community.

Parental expectations. Although there are many definitions for parental

expectations of involvement, many researchers describe it as a parent’s “realistic belief or

judgment” about how they should be involved in their child’s education (Goldenberg,

Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001, p. 191; Alexander, Entwisle, & Bedinger, 1994;

Trask-Tae & Cunningham, 2010).

Beliefs of parental involvement: A teacher or parent’s attitude toward parental

involvement and its benefit in student achievement and development.

The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR). STAAR is the

state of Texas student testing and accountability program. Throughout a student’s

academic career, they are tested in the core subjects of-reading, writing, mathematics,

science, and social studies. Depending on the grade level, students take two to four tests

per year (TEA, 2012b).

Student Achievement. Student achievement was measured based on the STAAR

Reading Test.

Title I. “The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal,

and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum,

proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic

assessments” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p.1).

Assumptions and Limitations

There are several assumptions associated with this study that may serve as

potential threats to the internal validity, which impact results. The first is that educators

30

believe that parental involvement is beneficial to a students’ success. The second is that

stakeholders in education want parents to be involved but do not know how to effectively

build positive, productive initiatives (Epstein & Associates, 2009). The next is that

families care about their children and want them to be successful in school and want

information from schools about how to support them (Epstein & Associates, 2009). The

fourth, is the participation and/or study response rates for Title I schools may differ due

to individual onsite factors shaping each school, including administrative support

provided to the teachers, and the teachers’ motivation levels for participation, time

constraints, and perceived value of participating in this study. Fifth, the attrition rates for

these Title I schools may differ due to family dynamics that occur at the student’s home

and are not within control of the teacher. Sixth, the understanding of the importance of

parental involvement may also be different at both schools. It is reported that educators

and school leaders understand the importance of involving families, but are unsure of

how to create successful engagement initiatives to produce involvement within their

schools (Epstein, 2010). Therefore, one cannot assume that all teachers and parents know

the benefits or importance of parental involvement. Seventh, the three spheres (family,

the school, and the community) of influence on student’s development and learning may

also differ by school. The more these spheres interact with one another, the more likely

students will be exposed to positive messages such as the importance of school, working

hard, helping one another and thinking critically (Epstein, 2010).

Identifying these assumptions and how the variables are associated, will allow a

better understanding of these relationships and provide potentials tools that teachers can

use for designing and executing tailored parental involvement programs. With this

31

understanding Title I schools will have additional information needed to set priorities

within their districts. Furthermore, it will allow parental involvement programs in Title I

schools to be deployed strategically and effectively.

Study limitations must be noted. First, this study is a one-time assessment of three

Title I schools located in Central Texas, and thus may not be generalizable. Further, these

findings may not be generalizable to other minority (Hispanic/Latino, and African

American) populations enrolled in other Title 1 Schools. However, they can be used to

inform a future parental involvement intervention for minority students in these Central

Texas school districts. The three schools in this study do not have a large population of

White, non-Hispanic students, and therefore a comparison may not be able to be made

within the same school or district. This is also true for comparison made for teacher and

parent’s expectations.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The remainder of the study covers four chapters. Chapter two consists of a

literature review detailing the historical overview based on the teacher and parent

perception and how it relates to student academic achievement. Additional sections

reviewing the literature are discussed to support the dynamic of parental perceptions and

student achievement. Chapter two will also discuss teachers and parent’s beliefs and

expectations of parental involvement, and will reviews varying models and definitions of

parental involvement.

Chapter three describes the methodology used to answer the research questions.

Chapter four details results of the data collected and found through the aforementioned

methodologies described in chapter three. Chapter five presents a conclusion of the

32

findings and questions of the data collected in chapter four. Lastly, Chapter five explains

a discussion of the results, recommendations and limitations of this study.

33

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter will include four areas: (1) Historical overview of parental

involvement; (2) factors related to teacher’s beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement; (3) factors related to parent’s beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement; (4) Epstein’s Framework of Parental Involvement (six types), including an

in-depth description and limitations. The next section will discuss the historical

overview, including state and federal programs and policies.

Historical Overview of Parental Involvement

For decades, parental involvement programs have been established in order to

support student achievement. Years of research and observable benefits have been

associated with schools and communities working together to support students (Albright,

& Weissberg, 2010; Blank et al., 2012; Chrispeels, 1996; Clark, 1990; Davies, 1988;

Epstein, 2010; Lareau, 1989). However, how schools have engaged parents to be

involved and the importance placed on the role of parents has developed overtime. Many

of the historical parental involvement initiatives have provided the framework of the

current structures and laws that are currently implemented in public school nationwide.

The 1960s was an era critical to not only parental involvement initiatives but also civil

rights and education, which influenced how schools developed a partnership with their

communities.

34

Civil Rights Movement (1960s)

Parental involvement initiatives gained national attention in the 1960s as part of

an era focused on education reform and the Civil Rights Movement. Encouraged by the

Civil Rights Movement, President Lyndon Johnson’s administration created - and some

would argue fueled - a “War on Poverty Program.” This program was created based on

the high poverty rate and strongly encouraged participation of all stakeholders, including

citizens, in educational reform efforts. From a federal standpoint, the involvement of

stakeholders aimed to: (1) allow services administered to the poor to be tailored and more

responsive to needs, and (2) integrate the urban population into community life and

promote stability (Davies, Upton, Clasby, Baxter, Powers & Zerchkov, 1979). These

efforts helped set the national expectation for community engagement initiatives that

influenced how schools support students from communities in poverty. The “War on

poverty” was used as a springboard to develop programs under the umbrella of this

initiative such as Job Corps (to help students develop marketing skills), Neighborhood

Youth Corps (provide work experience experiences), Upward Bound (assist high school

students in entering college), Food Stamp Act of 1964, Project Head Start (provided an

early education to students) and at the centerpiece the Economic Opportunity Act

(Boundless, 2013). The combined goal of these programs was developed to combat

poverty by providing economic opportunities through education, job training, and

community development (Boundless, 2013).

Economic Opportunity Act (1960s)

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (EOA) is an example the government’s

effort to involve citizens in federal and state programs. EOA supported President

35

Johnson’s views and advocacy for individuals in poverty and emphasized the need to

provide opportunities for them to succeed in the future. The first objective of EOA was to

aid the poor by providing the tools (such as education, training, and loans) to improve

their skills (Capp, 1967). This was accomplished, in part by the establishment of

federally funded Community Action Agencies (CAAs) throughout the United States

(National Archives, 1995). The CAAs provided technical trainings and education

classes that created a new wave of community leaders and activists, many of whom were

parents (National Archives, 1995).

EOA’s second aim was to strengthen the role of the federal government in

education (Capp, 1967), requiring individuals to have “maximum feasible participation”

in the planning of the poverty program (National Archives, 1995). The EOA is

recognized for their efforts in having citizens become more involved, and thus taking

ownership for improving their own quality of life. The EOA was used as a catalyst for

incorporating parental involvement in federally funded schools in order to continue the

war against poverty, minimize the cycle of poverty and provide educational opportunities

for students and their families. This initiative and movement continued to expand to state

and federal programs across the county.

State and Federal Programs (1960s to 1980s)

The National Commission of Excellence in Education is responsible for reviewing

the United States’ progress and status on the educational and academic achievement of

our nation’s students. In 1981, the Commission was assigned with the task to “review

and synthesize the data and scholarly literature on the quality of learning and teaching in

the nation’s schools, colleges, and universities, both public and private, with special

36

concern for the education experience of teen-age youth” (U.S. Department of Education,

1983a). The Commission published their findings in a report entitled, “A Nation at Risk,”

issued in 1983. In this report, The Commission provided evidence that indicated a failure

of the country’s “promise” of meeting our educational expectations and needs. In regard

to the country’s literacy, they reported that 13% of all 17 year-olds were functionally

illiterate (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 1983b). They also reported that students’ performance in

verbal skills, mathematics, physics and English coursework consistently declined based

on SAT scores (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 1983b). These findings prompted numerous

educational reform efforts to address these declining core subject areas.

As part of these reform efforts, the federal government created two programs

addressing poverty and achievement that included parental involvement components: (1)

Head Start, and (2) Follow Through programs. These programs were education-based

initiatives that were part of the poverty programs on the premise that “the poor should

participate in planning and carrying out of programs designed for their benefit” (Davies,

et al., 1979, p. 5). The Head Start program has enjoyed wide acceptance following its

national adoption.

The Head Start Program

The Head Start Program, created in 1965, began as an eight-week program but

has now expanded to a full nine-month school year. The goal of Head Start is to educate

preschool children and prepare them for the first year of school as well as to contribute to

the overall well-being of a child and their ongoing development (Head Start Manual,

1980). Head Start provides opportunities aimed at leveling the playing field of

individuals from poor economic backgrounds (Head Start Manual, 1980). The program

37

also provides medical, dental, nutritional attention and learning experiences to promote

and stimulate intellectual and social development (Head Start Manual, 1980). Head Start

originally viewed parents as learners and sought ways to improve their education in

hopes that would contribute to higher levels of success for their children. The program

provides educational courses on nutrition, parenting skills, budgeting and money

management, and child development as well as adult GED classes, and child rearing

training (Head Start Manual, 1980).

Head Start recognized that (1) focusing on the child alone would not be enough to

accomplish the goals of the program, and (2) a child is reared in a family and lives in a

community. Therefore, involving parents and the community in the child's Head Start

experience became vital (Head Start Manual, 1980). Creators planned, with community

members, to design components of the program and foster acceptance from the

community. Head Start invested time with parents to educate and encourage them to

participate in the education of their child and to invest in the well-being of their home and

community. Head Start designed detailed information about the specific roles parents

could play in their child’s education which led many parents to see the importance of

their involvement. Furthermore, these parents were able to take these skills and create

their own educational community programs to not only support their child but their

neighborhoods as well.

Head Start created an official Manual of Policies and Instruction, describing the

four areas of parent participation, which are still used, today (Head Start Manual, 1980).

1. Parents as decision-makers: Parents become a part of the staff and participate in

the development of the content in the classrooms and operations of the program.

38

Parent contribution resulted in higher levels of buy-in to the program.

2. Parents as paid staff, volunteers, and observers in the classroom: Parents

involved in the educational experience of the program have a better

understanding of the purpose of the center and how students can be supported at

home. When parents are involved in the classroom, it sends a message to students

and parents that the parents are invested in the education of their child. It also

helps the faculty establish a relationship and gain a better understanding of the

community that they work in. Benefits for parents also include, greater self-

confidence and parenting skills.

3. Parents involved in activities, which they themselves have helped to develop:

Parents’ interests and their own visions are respected. At the beginning of the

academic school year, parents work together to create and develop a plan of

activities where they can continue their own learning. These adult programs

provide an opportunity for parents to work together on community and school

concerns.

4. Parent’s working at home with their own children in cooperation with Head Start

staff to support the child's Head Start experiences: Head Start promotes home

and community visits by the staff to provide information about how parents and

children can work together in the learning and development of the child. Parents

have the option to permit home visits however; they are informed of the benefits.

If parents understand that the staff is invested in their families’ well-being, they

are more likely to support the program.

Through a detailed blueprint for parent involvement and a hierarchy of parent

39

committees, parents were expected to be influential in every component of the program.

The goal was that the parents, staff and community members would develop a partnership

in the education of students and a mutual learning process for both sides would be

established (Head Start Manual, 1980). This source of information influenced another

handbook and increased the level of parental engagement.

In 1969, Manual 10A was created, entitled Parent Involvement, A Workshop of

Training Tips for Head Start Staff. It stated that at least 50% percent of the Parent

Advisory Committee or Council must be parents and they must be democratically elected

to their posts by the parents of children currently enrolled in the program (Head Start

Manual, 1980, p. 3). As the program became more established, the involvement of

parents appeared to be a great influence. To continue the momentum of involvement,

revisions were made in 1972, to establish a new objective. The new objective stated that

“Only by providing parents with an opportunity to influence the program would Head

Start's objective of enabling all children to reach their maximum potential be realized”

(Head Start Manual, p.4, 1980). Parents were also designated more responsibilities such

as the staffing, budget, curriculum, grant requests, and other operations of the program

(Head Start Manual, 1980, p.3). Parents were also given veto power over the remaining

50 percent of the program.

It became apparent that parents were now a central component in the success of

the Head Start Program. Every flourishing center influenced other programs that

supported the war on poverty, communities showed improvement, and the groundwork of

social change was established. Parent involvement was the key to creating and continuing

the initiative to eliminate poverty through community activism.

40

The success of the Head Start initiative was a catalyst for future parent

involvement programs. It was recognized, however, that many students starting out in the

Head Start program were already behind. As a result, in 1968 a new program to identify

and work with children at the earliest age possible was created. This intervention sparked

34 Parent and Child Involvement centers throughout the country. Their target was infants

through school-aged children, and was recognized as a center for assisting in the

upbringing of children through intervention strategies that focused on the parent as the

main educator. These methods included: home-based programs for infants and toddlers,

centers for pre-school age children, day care services, and resources for pregnant

teenagers, and child and family support programs (Head Start Manual, 1980).

Home Start was another program influenced by the success of Head Start and

parent leadership. In 1972, Home Start was created and used an alternative form of

involvement with the goal of understanding how adults learn, how they teach their

children and what types of programs best support families (Administration/Policy

Council/Parent Involvement, 2000). The program used staff to conduct home visits to

teach parents’ effective skills and strategies to help with their child’s development and

education. Another program was The Exploring Parenting Program. It was an initiative

offered in 1978 to certain Head Start programs throughout the United States as a trial

effort in parent education. The initiative allowed for parents to participate through hands

on experiences that strengthened their parenting skills by working with the skills they

already possessed.

In addition to the creation of the Head Start and related educational programs

mentioned above, Congress also passed the first ever school financial aid programs, like

41

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), later reauthorized in 2012, as the

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. This allowed the government to help schools serving

low-income students with the aim of improving student achievement. ESEA was the first

major federal school aid initiative that changed the field of education. The purpose of this

initiative was to: “Ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity

to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging

State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments” (U.S.

Department of Education, 2004). ESEA allowed the creation of Title I schools.

Title I

Title I funding is for public schools serving a high percentage of student from

CLED families. It is believed that funding increases support and resources needed to

close the academic achievement gap that exists between minorities and whites (NCES,

2011) as well as ensuring that all students are taught according to rigorous education

standards.

Title I is a major component in the education system, it is the largest federal

program for both elementary and secondary schools (U.S. Department of Education,

(2012). Out of 98, 817 operating schools in the United States 66, 646 are involved with

Title I (Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics, 2011).

This initiative supplements state and local funding for children in CLED, high poverty

areas, and low academic student performances. The Title I program provides academic

support by providing the funds to hire additional staff members and provides

opportunities for additional learning such as day and after school tutoring used to help

student achievement.

http://ies.ed.gov/

42

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

One of the nation’s top goals was and is to increase academic achievement of all

students (NCLB, 2002). In response to this goal, the NCLB Act brought national

attention to focus our country’s resources and energies on strengthening the parental

involvement to increase student achievement. In 2001, The No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB) was implemented to minimize and eventually close not only the achievement

gap, but gaps in accountability, flexibility, and choice, within schools as well, so that

truly no child is left behind (Public Law, 2002). NCLB ensures that schools and districts

meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) markers and puts a system in place for those

schools that fail to meet AYP. This system holds districts, schools, administrators, and

teachers accountable for student achievement through State Achievement Test data.

Criticisms of NCLB Act

Section 1118 under the NCLB Act of 2001 describes and identities a new role for

parental involvement in our schools. This section states that local educational agencies

may qualify to receive funding for parental involvement initiatives if they implement

programs, activities and procedures to engage parents (Public Law, 2002). In addition,

each one of the requirements must be well planned and thought out and serve a specific

purpose and ultimately result in the benefit of student achievement (Public Law, 2002).

From Section 1118 in the NCLB (2001) Act, Epstein (2005) identified four main

principles that describe and organize parental involvement that promotes more-equitable

and effective programs of school, family, and community partnerships. The four main

principles in Section 1118 are recognized as (Epstein, 2005):

1. Parental Involvement requires multilevel leadership: Epstein describes

43

this principle as involving parents in all facets of the educational through

developing policies and action plans in multiple levels of the educational

accountability system. Educators must also be trained to develop these

plans to ensure that they are effective in engaging parents in the education

system and set respective goals within the partnership between school and

home. It is also the responsibility of the administration, central office and

state to review plans and disaggregate data based on the effectiveness of

these plans and policies.

2. Parental Involvement is a component of school and classroom

organization: NCLB defines parental involvement as a vital element in the

achievement of students that connects to curriculum, instruction,

assessments, and other aspects of school organization. Schools that receive

Title I funds must create a parent and school partnership that benefits the

academic and overall well- being of students.

3. Parental Involvement recognizes the shared responsibilities of educators

and families for children’s learning and success in schools: This principle

involves heavily on the communication aspect of relationship between

home and school. Teachers are required to keep parents informed of their

child’s progress and academic/social needs. More specifically, schools

must communicate with parents, students test scores, requirements for

graduation and completion of programs, and explain the results and what

they represent. With this information parents are expected to help support

their child in making improvements and have a better understanding of

44

where their child is at in their academic career.

4. Parental Involvement programs must include all families, even those who

are not currently involved, not just the easiest to reach (Epstein, 2005):

Epstein describes two main goals of this principle. The first one is to

identify and understanding the inequalities with the school system and

respond with policies and programs that create a greater opportunity for

students and their families within the educational system (Epstein, 2005).

The idea of equity is also an essential component for NCLB’s requirement

for parental and family involvement (Epstein, 2005). This requirement

emphasizes interactions with families must be purposeful, understandable

and put language into terms so that parents can clearly understand

(Epstein, 2005).

The laws and expectations of the parental involvement component are set for

schools to follow, however, determining the effectiveness of this act in engaging parents

in the schools needs further evaluation. Two of the main focuses of NCLB have looked at

student academic achievement and teacher quality. However, student achievement is also

linked to the home-school relationship (Epstein, 2005). Therefore, some researchers

argue that this home-school relationship has been overlooked by the state because it

places extra emphasis on meeting annual year progress (AYP) expectations of

standardized scores for their district, and less on home-school dynamics (Epstein, 2005).

According to Epstein (2005), the NCLB’s aim of strengthening equity of parental

involvement relies on two major components of research by sociologists of education. A

large amount of research has documented the inequities involving the challenges in

45

engaging parents in schools. Lareau (1989) found that the more formal education a parent

has the greater the level of his or her involvement in their child’s life. This was observed

across all ages and grade levels. The challenge becomes how teachers can effectively and

actively engage and provide tools to all parents from various educational backgrounds to

support their children in their education. It is important to note that parents from CLED

backgrounds may be involved in their child’s education but this may take on different

forms such as nontraditional ways. For example, creating a set space to completing

homework assignments in the home. However, it is reported that many forms of parental

involvement such as volunteering or attending parent conferences may be difficult for

some parents of CLED backgrounds due to additional variables and stressors (Muijs,

Harris, Chapman, Stoll & Russ, 2004). Therefore, maintaining existing parental

involvement levels by teachers among parents of CLED backgrounds as well as finding

solutions to the issues related to life stressors that some parents experience becomes

increasingly important.

Researchers (Epstein, 2001; Sheldon in press; Simon, 2004; & Van Voorhis,

2003) reported that when schools support high quality programs to engage families, and

create an inviting environment where their voice is valued, parents become more

involved with the school and their child’s education. Although the parental involvement

component is a law written by NCLB, it is important to take into considerations some of

the challenges in fulfilling these requirements. Epstein (2005) posits modifications for

NCLB to strengthen the partnership between schools and parents. This would help

address some of the reported limitations of NCLB (Epstein, 2005).

46

Epstein (2005) posits that no policy is perfect, and that it is essential to include

modifications to strengthen the policy and its overall effectiveness, as needed. She

recommends that an update should include recent research on effective parental

involvement initiatives. Epstein (2005) provides an example of a recent study indicating

that leadership and team work must be a component in supporting the parental

involvement initiative as required by the NCLB, Section 1118. This is important because

Section 118 does not emphasize teamwork and collaboration as part of the parental

involvement structure. Epstein (2005) then describes how typical schools operate when

initiating parental involvement. She states that often times, one person is assigned to lead

the initiative, instead of a team working together, to create strategies and activities to

involve families. Thus, the emphasis on teamwork and shared responsibility with

multiple stakeholders is crucial if schools are truly going to fulfill NCLB requirements. It

is much larger than one person.

Another modification Epstein (2005) notes, in order to improve the executions of

NCLB among all classrooms, schools, districts and states is to communicate clear

expectations and guidelines. In the additional modifications, Epstein (2005) highlights

that clearer guidelines for using allocated funds to support parental involvement must be

outlined more descriptively under Section 1118. Following, more examples for secondary

programs that encourage family involvement should be included and the definition

should be broaden to emphasize the shared responsibilities aspect to develop community

partnerships. Moreover, parents whose students are in low performing schools should

receive more time and information on the option of changing schools. Lastly, Epstein

(2005) argues that more federal monitoring of actions to meet the requirements for family

47

involvement need to be implemented in order to ensure that funds are being used

adequately and effectively.

Research has brought attention to and addressed the standards states and their

districts are required to follow however, further research and modifications, as

aforementioned need to be addressed in the future policies of parental involvement and

schools. In order to maximize the parental involvement component of NCLB more

research and data must be collected to refine its expectations.

National Education Goals Report (1995)

The federal government has emphasized the importance and necessity of parental

involvement in our schools. This is evident through the established National Goals for

Education. According to the Data for the National Education Goals Report (1995), there

were two major goals expected to be achieved by the year 2000. The first goal was titled

“Ready to Learn” and explained that all children would start school ready to learn. In

order to reach this goal, several actions were outlined with a list of initiatives that must

take place. The first one was that students would have access to “high-quality and

developmentally appropriate” preschool programs that prepared students for their first

years of education. The next, was that each and every parent in the U.S. would serve as

their child’s first teacher and commit time each day to assist with the learning process in

their preschool child’s education. In order to complete this task, parents had access to

training and the educational tools needed to support their child. Lastly, each child would

be given the “nutrition, physical activity experiences, and health care” needed to begin

each school day with “healthy minds and bodies,” and have the mental capabilities

throughout the day to maintain focus and ready to learn National Education Goals Report

48

(1995). As a preliminary measure to ensuring the health and well-being of students and

future educational success, an aim was to significantly lower low–birth weights by

providing prenatal health care systems.

The second goal was titled “Parental Participation.” It was projected that by

2000, every school in the United States would encourage partnerships that would increase

the level of “parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional,

and academic growth of children” (the National Education Goals Report, 1995). In

accomplishing this goal, three main objectives were outlined. The first described that

individual states would create and develop initiatives and policies to aid schools and

educational agencies in establishing programs that promote parental involvement in the

varying needs of “parents and the home, including parents of children who are

disadvantaged or bilingual, or parents of children with disabilities” (The National

Education Goals Report, 1995).

The next objective described that every school would “actively engage parents

and families in a partnership, which supports the academic, work of children at home and

shared educational decision making at school” (The National Education Goals Report,

1995). Lastly, both parent and families would contribute to the level of school

accountability and ensure that schools are supported and teachers and are held to the

highest standards.

Another example was the goal of students being ready to learn. According to the

2010 United States Census, one out of every five school-age children lives in poverty,

with minorities comprising the highest percentage (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Nearly

40% of African Americans and 35% of Hispanic children are reported to be in poverty

49

(Census Bureau, 2010). In addition, children from families of low SES begin school, on

average, 12 to 14 months behind in the pre-reading and language skills compared to their

peers of higher income levels (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine,

2000), which affect their future academic achievement potential.

Part of the initiative to prepare students for their educational careers was and is

the implementation of preschool and early childhood programs. Currently, only 40% of

qualified students are enrolled in state-funded early childhood education programs

(National Institute for Early Education Research, 2011). This percentage decreases for

three-year olds. Interestingly, ten states still do not have publicly funded preschool

programs of any type (National Institute For Early Education Research, 2011).

National Education Goals Report (2011-2014)

In the president’s joint session of congress in 2009, he stated that, “By 2020,

America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world”

(U.S. Department of Education, 2011, p. 4). In support of this belief, the Department of

Education's mission “is to promote student achievement and preparation for global

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access” (U.S.

Department of Education, 2011, p. 4). Within this aim, goals have been developed that

focus on improving student achievement to increase high school and college completion

rates, and educational attainment (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). The recent

National Education Goals Report are inclusive of a strategic plan with six goals focusing

on: (1) Post-secondary education, career and technical and adult education; (2)

Elementary education; (3) Early learning; (4) Equity; (5) Continuous improvement of the

U.S. Education System; and (6) U.S. Department of Education Capacity. Of these, goals

50

1, 2, 4, and 5 have parental involvement components. Briefly, these goals focus on

developing strategies to make parental involvement research/activities more meaningful

and accessible for teachers, principals, and administrators, as well as for parents, families,

school board members, and community members (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).

Factors Related to Teachers’ Beliefs and Expectations of Parental Involvement

According to Epstein (2004), parents need meaningful reasons to participate in

their child’s academics (Epstein, & Salinas, 2004). Parents also view teachers as a

knowledge base of information about what their children are learning in school (Moles,

1993). This suggests that educators may act as a resource for parents so that they can help

support their child’s academics.

The way a teacher engages and supports parental involvement, and how parental

involvement is perceived, can be influenced and shaped by several variables, including a

teacher’s beliefs and experiences that guide their expectations of what parental

involvement should look like in their students’ lives. Four major influences affect

teacher’s beliefs and expectations (1) the teacher’s own socio-cultural background, (2)

teacher and student mismatch, (3) teacher attitudes and practices and (4) school

environment. These combined influences may contribute to the beliefs and expectations

teachers have of parental involvement.

Socio-cultural Background

According to Vygotsky (1978), a person’s socio-cultural background and their

experiences affect their learning and development. This same idea applies to teachers, in

that their experiences of their own education and childhood can impact their practices in

the classroom. Further, educators may assume that parent’s expectations, and their level

51

of interaction and involvement in their child’s education, are based on their socio-cultural

experiences and beliefs.

Cultural compatibility theorists argue that when schools require children to act in

ways that are “incongruent with what they have learned at home, misunderstanding,

problems and conflicts may arise” (Phelan, Davidson, & Yu, 1997, p. 9). However,

families that are not from the United States enter the education system with different

values and beliefs. Given these two diverse dyads, and taking account the different socio-

cultural backgrounds, teachers and parents may differ in their belief systems, culture,

expectations and values regarding parental involvement than that of these families. This

may have the potential to create a gap in the understanding between teachers and parents.

The gap may widen when teachers and schools expect parents to be involved at a certain

level while these parents may not perceive value in certain types of parental involvement.

Bireda and Chait (2011) reported that many teachers, especially those from white, middle

class backgrounds, hold a traditional view of what parental involvement should look like

(Bireda & Chait, 2011). However, experiences such as a parent disciplining their child or

teaching them through storytelling may not be considered as parental participation.

However, research has shown this is an example of involvement that contributes to the

well-being of a child’s development (Gonzalez-Mena, 1994).

Many teachers contentedly use the historical, teacher-dominated model of parent

involvement, where the teacher has the power to make decisions, instead of developing a

partnership with families (Comer, 2001). It is important to assess a teacher belief system,

as well as their expectations of involvement, in order to have a better understanding of

practices that may or may not be effective and to align school wide expectations. This

52

will help enable schools and teachers to be better equipped for involving parents and

recognizing the values, needs and wants of parents.

Teacher and Student Mismatch

Children from minority backgrounds make up nearly half of the student

population in the United States, however, over 80% of teachers are from white, middle

class backgrounds (NCES, 2004). Teachers may not represent the school’s diversity. This

may potentially lead to a mismatch between the teacher and parent’s expectation of

parental involvement. According to the authors of the Center for American Progress

(Bireda & Chait, 2011) publication, it is imperative that schools mirror student diversity

with teacher diversity. The authors also express that, “while there are effective teachers

of many races, teachers of color have demonstrated success in increasing academic

achievement for engaging students of similar backgrounds” (Dee, 2004).

Teacher Composition

Teacher composition of our schools does not mirror the emerging minority

populations (Bireda & Chait, 2011). The majority of our educators are representative of

white middle class backgrounds, and work in CLED communities (Bireda & Chait,

2011), creating a mismatch between the teacher’s ethnicity, culture, values and identity

and the students (and their families) that they serve. This mismatch further poses a

challenge for sustaining teacher-student and teacher-family partnerships (Epstein et al.,

2009), as well as student’s level of academic achievement (Souto-Manning & Swick,

2006). It is vital for teachers and school district administrators alike to understand these

differences in cultures and values (Chavkin, & Williams, 1987; Davies, 1988). A

teacher’s definition of and expectations for parental involvement may be different from

53

those in the community they serve. These differing experiences involving cultural values,

and beliefs can result in a lack of understanding and poor communication, thus affecting

overall school climate and achievement (Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006). Teachers’

differing expectations can leave parents feeling inadequate and/or unsupportive in their

child’s academic career (Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006).

The issue of teacher diversity has become increasingly significant, gaining

national attention. In 2010, the U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan implemented a

national initiative called Teach.Gov in order to recruit what he calls the “next generation”

of teachers. In efforts to create a more diverse teaching population he states

I’m very concerned that increasingly, our teachers don’t reflect the great

diversity of our nation’s young people, and so making sure we have more teachers

of color and particularly more men, more black and Latino men, coming into

education is going to be a significant part of this Teach Campaign. (Center for

American Progress, 2011, p. 1)

It is imperative for researchers and schools to begin or continue to investigate and

address the underlying issues of parental involvement and how to implement best

practices. One of the motivators and purposes for involving parents in schools is

recognizing the reported benefits of parental involvement.

Teacher Attitudes and Practices

In a study conducted by Becker and Epstein (1982), 3,700 teachers who taught

first, third and fifth grades were administered a survey to describe their attitudes and

teaching practices regarding parental involvement. Nearly half of the teachers indicated

some level of parental involvement in their classroom, for example volunteering.

54

Teachers rated traditional modes of communication such as open house, school

conferences, or phone calls, very highly as a method of engaging parents. However, most

did not indicate home visits as a frequent practice. But, teachers who did use home visits

as a regular practice had more positive views about parental involvement compared to

teachers who did not use the practice (Becker & Epstein, 1982). This belief could be

attributed to home visits being a form of parental involvement that extends beyond the

teacher-dominated environment, promoting a partnership with families. Overall, data

from the survey implied that teachers who fail to use parent involvement strategies and

who taught students of parents with a low educational background, believed that parents

would not be able to support their children with homework based activities (Becker &

Epstein, 1982). The survey also concluded that teachers believed that reviewing and

signing papers, student folders, conducting parent-teacher conferences and summer

supplemental activities to complete at-home and parents’ reading to children at home

were successful activities of parents engaging with their child (Becker & Epstein, 1982).

These findings suggest that it is important to engage parents in these types of activities

while also learning their preferred forms of communications by teachers.

Another factor that can influence a teacher’s expectation of parental involvement

is their experience of it in the classroom, including the type of expectations they hold for

their students. In 1948, Merton coined a term called the “Self-fulfilling prophecy” which

describes when teachers have high expectations for their students academic achievement,

students respond with higher levels of achievement; however, when teachers do not have

these expectations students may be not be as encouraged to achieve (Brehem and Kassin,

1996). This means that students may perform in ways that teachers expect. A “self-

55

fulfilling prophecy” is when teachers judge a student prematurely, specifically how he or

she will achieve, and behave in their classroom. Historically, arguments of low

achievement, income and parental involvement would be perceived as barriers, however,

recent studies show that blaming parents results in deficit thinking (Becerra, 2012;

Triandis, 1995). This is when educators attribute a student's level of achievement to their

culture and make negative assumptions about how they are linked (Guerra & Nelson,

2009). The same idea can be applied to their perceptions of parents, including parents of

minority and low-income backgrounds. Because parents may not hold the same

traditional value system as the teacher, teachers may prejudge parents’ levels of

involvement and how well their child will perform in their class. These experiences may

have a strong influence in what teachers perceive parental involvement to be. For

example, Swick (2004), states that a few negative experiences with a family can create a

“negative stereotype” regarding the process of parental involvement. Researchers

Ramirez (2001), and Morris and Taylor (1998) insinuate that one of the greatest

influences that impacts a teachers idea of parental involvement is from the stereotypes

teachers create based on their beliefs of students and families from low socioeconomic

statuses, and single family homes. This idea then makes teachers less likely to become

eager to engage in the parental involvement process and then their actions based on their

beliefs reinforce their attitude by continued negative encounters or a lack of

understanding of certain situations (Comer, 2001).

Cultural Capital

What can serve as a barrier of establishing a SFCP are the deficit views about

parents and their children from diverse backgrounds (Guerra & Nelson, 2010). Before

56

any partnership can be created it is imperative to address teacher’s deficit thinking as a

preliminary step because these beliefs could undermine any reform effort and hinder the

viewing of students and their families from an asset perspective (Garcia & Guerra, 2004).

For example, Ramirez (2003) reports that one potential barrier to establishing effective

parental involvement initiatives is the parent’s perception that teachers lack knowledge

about the student’s culture. If a parent perceives the teacher to be sensitive and

understanding to the student’s culture, the parent is more likely to become involved with

the classroom and the school.

Self-fulfilling prophecies and/or deficit thinking of teacher’s may be addressed,

possibly through trainings or professional developments as reported in the significance of

this study. Then, cultural capital of school communities may begin to develop and

schools may understand their families’ cultural knowledge and capital wealth. When

schools develop the capacity to work effectively with their students and families they can

begin to effectively teach their students (Garcia & Guerra, 2004). Lareau and Horvat

(1999) posit that students who possess valued social and cultural capital perform better in

school compared their otherwise peers.

Cultural capital is defined as “the sense of group consciousness and collective

identity aimed at the advancement of an entire group” (Franklin, 2002, p. 177-178), in

other words, when people work together for the betterment of individuals and/or

community. Oliver & Shapiro (1995) suggest (but not limited to) six types of capital:

familial capital, social capital, aspirational capital, linguistic capital, resistant capital, and

navigational capital. These types of capitals are a part of a dynamic process that builds on

one another to contribute to the development of a community’s cultural wealth (Oliver &

57

Shaprio, 1995).

Altering the perspective of marginalized groups such as minority communities

can shift the focus of what students and families cannot do to what they can do. For

example, students that are bilingual may be seen as academically behind or not able to

read as well as native speakers. However, building on a student’s linguistic capital,

students with abilities to speak to language can be viewed as having educational assets

(Faulstich-Orellana, 2003). Faultstich-Orellana (2003) posits that understanding a

students’ linguistic capital can help teachers view the traditionally marginalized CLED

students as possessing multiple languages, and communication and social skills. Bilingual

students also possess the cultural wealth such the ability to engage in a storytelling

tradition that includes telling and listening to stories which requires the skills such

memorization, attention to detail, dramatic pauses and incorporating different tones of the

voice (Yosso, 2005).

Social capital in an educational setting can be developed when schools establish a

partnership with its community and families and work together in a productive way

(Epstein, 1987b). These interactions between these areas support student learning be

creating a web of support systems for students and improving academic achievement and

enhance communities (Epstein, 1987b). Establishing a SFCP can capitalize on the

cultural wealth of their families and empower not only the teaching community but also

their school community.

School Environment

A school’s environment and culture where a teacher works may play in the role in

teachers’ perceptions of parental involvement. When teachers recognize their schools as

58

having a caring and welcoming environment, they are more likely to engage parents, and

parents are more likely to be involved (Bauch & Goldring, 2000). How a school operates

and what it values have a great influence of teacher expectations of parental involvement.

For example, if the administrators encourage parental involvement and hold teachers

accountable, they are more likely to engage in the process in their classroom. However, if

a school functions with a mentality of isolationism and individualism teachers may take

on the same types of attitude and operate only at the classroom level, and avoid outside

parental contact. Again, as aforementioned, negative experiences of parental involvement

can reinforce teachers’ beliefs, and foster continued negative encounters, creating a

perpetual cycle in isolated classrooms, where neither parent nor teacher engage in the

communication process (Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006).

Teacher Barriers of Engaging in Parental Involvement

Studies exists on the barriers parents face, however, research into specific barriers

faced by teachers in engaging parental involvement is more limited. Teacher perceptions,

and social-cultural experiences, may hinder their ability to understand the context in

which parental involvement should take place. A study conducted by Davies (1988),

found that teachers viewed CLED parents as “deficient” despite parents’ willingness to

be helpful. Additional obstacles cited include a lack of administrative support and

promotion (Chavkin & Williams, 1987), acting as hindrances in engaging in meaningful

parent involvement experiences. More notably, a lack of communication, teacher time

management and teacher preparation training are the areas where the most research is

conducted.

59

Communication Between Teachers and Parents and Language Barriers

A reported challenge that teachers face in engaging in the parental involvement

process is communication (Miretzky, 2004; Jacobson 2005). According to a report

written by Apple & Beane (1995) schools often fail to support an environment that

creates and sustains the communication requirement of a democratic community. A lack

of communication can be the root cause of many issues, and may create an unbalanced

dynamic between teachers and parents. According to Boers (2002), educators want

families to initiate contact with the hope of establishing a relationship with the teacher to

better understand the classroom expectations and to take part in their child’s academic

experience.

Reese (2002) reports that English-only speaking educators and Spanish-only

speaking parents are significant barriers to engaging parental involvement in schools,

because of the lack of a common language. Nearly 1,000,000 students in Texas are

categorized as having English as their second language (Texas Education Agency, 2010).

According to the Texas Education Code Chapter 89, public schools in Texas with 20 or

more students who indicate English as their second language are required to provide a

bilingual education program (Texas Education Code, 2012). Each of these programs is

required to have a teacher who speaks the student’s native language. An advantage to

having teachers who speak a student’s home language is that they can also communicate

with parents. However, many of these students can be excluded from the bilingual

programs for a number of reasons, such as high achievement on TELPAS (Texas English

Language Proficiency Assessment System) and other standardized state test scores. As a

result, these students are placed in general education classrooms where the majority of

60

the teachers do not speak the child’s home language. This can pose a great barrier in the

communication process between the classroom teacher and school. Often times, it takes

creative and innovative methods to find a way to translate messages and find the best

mode of transferring information. Finding the time to invest in translating and finding a

path where thoughts, questions and ideas can be exchanged freely may pose a hindrance

in the overall effectiveness of the communication process.

Teacher Time Management

Teachers have a lot of responsibilities. Their time must be allocated between

teaching, mentoring, counseling, grading work, creating lessons, meeting accountability

standards, preparing students for standardized tests, participating in extracurricular

activities, tutoring and being involved in meetings, just to name a few. It is therefore not

surprising that teachers have reported the lack of time as a barrier to establishing parental

involvement in their classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Research has also

noted that high student to teacher ratios may further hamper the efforts teachers can

dedicate to engaging in significant parent participation (Shartrand, Weiss, Kreider &

Lopez, 1997).

Principals of K-8 Title I schools reported that time is one of the greatest barriers

in their schools relative to parental involvement (U.S. Department of Education, 1997).

The same study reported that 87% of principals identify the lack of time as a significant

barrier to parental involvement, and 56% state that a teacher’s lack of time is a barrier

(U.S. Department of Education, 1997). As schools continue to strike a balance between

these responsibilities, both in and out of the classroom, teachers may develop more

flexibility and gain a deeper understanding of how to manage both the classroom, and

61

parental involvement. Intertwining the two is key in developing and creating an effective

time management plan to allot a space for parental involvement in schools.

Teacher Training of Parental Involvement Initiatives

Many teacher preparatory programs do not train teachers or provide them the

tools they need to understand the culture of the community in which they will work. This

issue is not spec to a particular region or program, but evident across the country. An

investigation of state certification programs in the US revealed that not one state required

a full course on parental and family involvement in order before granting certification to

teach (Radcliff, Malone, Nathan, 1994).

This lack of experience and knowledge may carry over into their classroom.

When teachers are educated within their schools, they are typically trained on the

traditional parent and family involvement model (Epstein, 1995). This framework has its

uses in certain areas; however, it can be limited in other dynamics initiated by parents. It

is important to recognize that the traditional parental involvement framework may

exclude some legitimate interaction patterns of families, such as a grandparent sharing a

life lesson (Gonzalez-Mena, 1994). Understanding the values of parents is critical in

creating partnership roles between schools and families.

Parental involvement is especially influential in a child’s academic achievement

in CLED areas because of both parents in the working class system, and other

sociological pressures on children (Crane, 1996). Gaining parental involvement in CLED

areas is one of the most challenging components of improving schools (Muijs, Harris,

Chapman, Stoll & Russ 2004). A reason for this challenge may be due to the lack of

professional development and training for educators to learn how to engage and promote

62

parental involvement in the classroom (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Dauber,

1991). As a result of deficit training, teachers may lack the knowledge to engage in

parental involvement, and may have feelings of ambiguity when it comes to involving

families. In a study conducted by Katz (1996), teachers new to the teaching field reported

feeling anxious and unconfident when engaging with parents because of the lack of

training they received. Dauber and Epstein, (1993), stress the importance for teachers to

be well versed in methods to engage families. They state that educators who are

knowledgeable of and comfortable with approaches to involve parents of their students,

and who are aware of the benefits of engaging parents, are more likely to promote parent

involvement in their classroom (Dauber & Epstein, 1991). However, the opposite is true

for teachers who are not adequately trained.

This lack of knowledge creates a gap between effective strategies to engage

parents and actual experience with successful involvement from parents. Teachers that

are not adequately trained are reported to be less likely to understand the benefits of

parental involvement and how to effectively engage in the PI process (Epstein & Dauber,

1991). Looking back at Section 1118 in the NCLB Act (2001), the law requires that

schools create meaningful and purposeful parental involvement activities, however, if

teachers are not adequately trained or lack the knowledge, parents will not be as engaged

as much as if their teachers were trained.

Response to Teacher Barriers

Moll and colleagues (Moll, Amandi, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) have conducted

research in the field of responding to the barriers that exist between the home and school

dynamic, especially involving differing cultures between the two. In their study

63

investigating household and school practices among Latino communities in Arizona, their

primary focus was to construct improvements in instruction that integrate the “knowledge

and skills” found in students’ homes while improving classroom practices that are

culturally responsive by developing teachers as lead researchers (Moll, et al., 1992). The

researchers worked based on their belief that “by capitalizing on household and other

community resources, we can organize classroom instruction that far exceeds in quality

the rote-like instruction these children commonly encounter in schools” (Moll, et al.,

1992, p.1).

Qualitative data was collected through ethnographic observations, interviews, life

histories and case studies. Ten teachers participated in the study and took part in

professional training on qualitative methods of study that involved ethnographic

observations, how to conduct interviews, take field notes and analyze and collect data.

This study was particularly unique in that the teachers were trained to be, and participated

as, the researchers and ethnographers. Each teacher was responsible for choosing three

households in their classroom to investigate. The data collected provided teachers with

the “funds of knowledge” that allowed them to create more culturally sensitive

curriculum, integrate and appreciate household activities such as storytelling and arts and

crafts (Moll, et al., 1992). It was ultimately the teacher’s responsibility to decide how

they would use their information.

One particular teacher noticed one of her fifth grade students selling gum to his

neighbor (Moll, et al., 1992). The teacher took this observation and integrated it into her

lesson plans to promote higher level thinking skills and active learning among students.

She facilitated a conversation about what the meaning of the word candy. Students then

64

formed a KWL chart (What I know, Want I want to Know, What I learned). Students

developed experimental questions and conducted investigations to answer those

questions. Parents were then brought in as experts in the areas being investigated. Unlike

typical parent volunteer work of making copies or fulfilling low task jobs, parents were

seen as cognitive assets and resources in the classroom (Moll & Greenberg, 1990). The

teacher integrated multiple subjects in the thematic unit of candy, such as learning the

ingredients of certain candies and how to read nutritional labels. Her students were

engaged, families were involved and students succeeded by performing well on each of

the lessons. The understanding and knowledge gained during this study of student

households provided teachers an insight to develop participatory and culturally relevant

pedagogy in their classrooms. Teachers assumed the role of the learner, and in turn a

gained an invaluable perspective into the best strategies to engage their children, involve

parents, and improve student achievement in their learning (Moll, et al., 1992).

These teachers have been trained on how to develop an understanding of

households and what that means for classrooms (Moll, et al., 1992). Now that the

teachers possess these tools, they may continue their research and train fellow

stakeholders in the school, with the ultimate goal of creating a culturally responsive

school (Moll, et al., 1992). Teachers took ownership for their own learning by collecting

and presenting the data and findings. This is a piece of experience we are missing in our

schools. Schools take the top down approach to try to increase parental involvement

practices typically through training or a workshop, instead of allowing teachers to take

ownership and experience their own development in their practices (Moll, et al., 1992).

65

While barriers continue to exist and vary widely, based on the dynamics and

cultures of each school and home community, they can be overcome through dedicated

and knowledgeable members of the school and community (Epstein, 1990). As more

research and understanding is gained from teachers and parents perspectives of parental

involvement, both sides can unite in a common goal in creating the best learning

environment for students and develop an effective involvement process.

Teacher Expectations and How They Relate Reading Achievement

One of the greatest hurdles for teachers working with minority students is to

bridge the gap between home and school (Pranksy & Bailey, 2003). Surprisingly,

research is reported that directly correlates teachers’ expectations and/or beliefs and

student academic achievement. This field is in desperate need of a broader research base.

Understanding the relationship between what teachers perceive parental involvement to

be can provide valuable insight into the effective measures taken by teachers to improve


Research supports that when parents are directly involved in their child’s

education the child will experience greater academic achievement (Hoover-Dempsey,

Walker, Sandler, Whetsel, Green, Wilkins, & Closson, 2005). Research supports that a

two way communication line between school and home, parents helping their child at

home with their academics, and participating in school based events, are linked to student

achievement within a teacher’s ratings of student competence, grades and test scores

(Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). In one particular study investigating the characteristics of

highly effective teachers, it was found that teachers who created connections with

students and their families had students that exhibited greater achievement (Varnell,

66

2006). With this understanding educators can tailor their curriculum to best meet the

needs of every student in their classroom. Another finding from the same study found

that teachers who developed meaningful and trusting relationships with parents believed

that these bonds were essential to their students reading achievement (Varnell, 2006).

When educators make an effort to involve parents in their classroom, their

students make higher gains in student achievement (McDermott & Rothenberg, 2001).

In a study investigating the home and school based factors that inhibit parental

involvement, parental involvement courses were implemented by researchers to measure

differences resulting from interventions. Comparing results from a pretest posttest

revealed that 83% of students made gains, measured by a state aligned assessment in

reading (Bartle, 2010). The interventions included offering summer classes for parents

and an interactive homework program. Teachers and elementary schools in this

Southeastern U.S. city were surveyed and interviewed on their perceptions of home and

school barriers of parental involvement.

Post interventions, teacher self-reported behaviors revealed that there was an

increase in establishing a home atmosphere geared more toward student learning, higher

communication exchanges, greater participation in aiding parent in the decision-making

process and more participation in the community (Bartle, 2010). As a result of this study,

the authors concluded that both the school and teachers needed a better understanding of

the perceptions of parent from CLED backgrounds and how to support them in helping

their child at home and school (Bartle, 2010).

An investigation conducted by the Florida Reading Center, identified a need to

improve the reading skills of students (Crawford, Torgesen, 2006). An example of an

67

area of need is during the academic year of 2005-2006 where only 17% of first grade

students completed the year with grade level skills as reported on the Dynamic Indicators

of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment (Crawford, Torgesen, 2006). The

percentage was even lower for students in second grade with only 9% in their grade who

completed the academic school year possessing the skills for the next grade level

(Crawford & Torgesen, 2006). Researchers from the center collected information to learn

about the best practices of schools that experience above average success providing

interventions to their students who have challenges with reading (Crawford & Torgesen,

2006).

Among the seven common traits observed in successful schools, parent

involvement was named as an effective trait (Crawford & Torgesen, 2006). Schools that

were considered “successful” were in the highest percentile of effectiveness of

interventions to increase academic achievement. Teachers’ beliefs and dedication were

associated with how they felt about the level of success their students could achieve.

Among the “successful” schools, teacher interviews revealed that regardless of language

barriers, limited support at home and low SES, their students could learn to read

(Crawfold & Torgesen, 2006). Among the less successful schools, teachers reported

reasons why their students were not successful. They stated that students had no support

at home, students and their families did not speak English and they lived in

underprivileged areas (Crawfold & Torgesen, 2006). Students can still learn and achieve

despite some of these hardships. Setting high expectations in classrooms reveals that

students achieve higher as compared to teachers who think of the child’s demographics as

a hindrance in their student’s education instead of thinking about innovative ways to

68

work with their population.

Interviews revealed that principals from the high performing schools reported that

engaging parental involvement with parents who only speak Spanish could be a

challenge. The first step they stated was to make them feel welcomed and once that was

achieved, it was important to begin building a relationship with them through positive

communication (Crawford & Torgesen, 2006). The underlying characteristic between all

of the successful schools was that they found meaningful ways to engage their

community members by first establishing relationships with them. Some key actions that

these schools did were to ensure that interpreters were present for all meetings and

activities at the school, educating parents on how to help their child at home,

communicating messages in students’ home language, and having community liaisons

visit their home (Crawford, & Torgesen, 2006). When the responsibility of a child’s

success is shared between home and school, greater achievement can be gained because a

child is supported in the two most influential places in his life.

Factors Related to Parent’s Beliefs and Expectations of Parental Involvement

There are many variables that contribute to a parent’s beliefs and expectations of

how they should be involved in their child’s education. Components such as a parent’s

expectations, attitudes and practices, and barriers are well cited in the literature as playing

a role in shaping parents’ experiences and actions (Lareau, 1987; Okagaki & Sternberg,

1993; Trumbull, Rothstein, Quiroz, & Greenfield, 2001; Zarate, M. E., 2007). In

addition, how these components impact student reading achievement will also be

addressed.

69

Parent Beliefs and Expectations

According to Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1997) parents’ beliefs are correlated

with a child’s school performance. For example, parents who emphasize the value of

developing behaviors of conformity, obedience and good behavior are associated with

lowered school outcomes (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). However parent’s beliefs

that stress the importance of developing autonomous behaviors and self-respect have

been linked to higher school performances (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

Understanding the different types of parenting is important for schools to recognize in

developing a SFCP and recognizing the dynamics of their community members.

In a study investigating parental beliefs and students’ school performance,

evidence indicated that differences exist between parents’ beliefs about parental

involvement among different cultural backgrounds (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993).

Caucasian parents had high values of autonomy compared to the other groups. However

there was a pattern between, Non Caucasian parents as they valued conforming to set

systems, for example emphasizing their children have good manners and behavior, follow

directions and not question authority figures (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993). The belief of

promoting behaviors of conformity are linked to lower levels of achievement in the core

areas of reading and math and having an overall lower intellectual performance,

classroom behavior and self esteem (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993). On the contrary

parents’ beliefs that value independent thinking, self-respect and other autonomous

behaviors were linked to a higher academic performance (Schaefer & Edgerton, 1985).

Parents’ belief systems affect the way they are involved in their child’s education.

For example a parent that promotes conformity may believe that actions such as

70

questioning authority figures like teachers is an insult and a sign of disrespect. The

importance of empowering parents to become more involved and speak their opinions

and question systems they may not fully understand has never been more valuable than

now. Understanding their perspective will provide an insight of the steps schools need to

take in engaging parents in the education of students. Regardless of the type of

involvement one that promotes conformity or independence, it is important that school

create parental involvement initiatives that support parents with a variety of approaches

in order to encourage students and their families in learning and achievement.

Any form of parental involvement has a positive influence on children’s learning

(Dixon, 1992). However, one of the most influential activities is when parents work

directly with their child on activities that involve learning in the home (Cotton &

Wikelund, 2002). Specific programs for parents have been reflected in the research as

also having a positive outcome with students. School initiatives that incorporate parents

reading with their children, assisting and engaging in homework assignments or using

teacher provided materials to support their child in their homework show positive results

(Cotton & Wikelund, 2002).

Attitude and Practices

Taking a deeper look at where parental involvement first begins is crucial to

understanding a parent’s belief and expectation of the role they should play at home in

supporting their child’s education. Whereas Okagaki & Sternberg, (1993) contrasted

parent beliefs associated with cultural differences, Lareau (1987) investigates parents’

beliefs through social class differences. Working class parents with a high school

education or less, who worked hourly jobs, were found to have a disconnected view of

71

home and school (Lareau, 1987). For example, the parents perceived their responsibility

to be in the home where they would ensure their children was on time, well behaved and

prepared for school. However, they did not believe their role was to be involved in the

school or teaching their child, instead placing the responsibility for the educational aspect

of the child’s development on the school. For example, one parent was quoted as saying,

I know that when she gets into the higher grades, I know I won't be able to help

her, math especially, unless I take a refresher course myself… So I feel that it is

the teacher's job to help her as much as possible to understand it, because I know

that I won't be able to. (Lareau, 1987, p.79)

In addition, these families were found to possess more conforming behaviors

where they trusted and valued the school’s opinions and decisions, for example, with

disciplinary actions or grades (Lareau, 1987). The opposite held true for upper middle

class parents who, for example, held college degrees. They perceived their role to be

involved with schools, meaning that support should come from both home and school.

These parents believed that playing an integral role in schools was necessary to ensure a

quality education for their child. For example, they perceived their responsibility was to

follow up with teachers, question or take part in the decision making process concerning

their child, and have more involvement in their child’s education at school. Regardless of

perspectives, it is vital for schools to be able to develop a relationship where parents and

families work together to support the achievement of their students. Understanding the

cultural dynamic of the community will guide students in the types of activities geared

toward involving families and communities with the school.

72

Research indicates that homework is one of the most important factors that

increase student achievement, in addition to classroom instruction, and a child’s

performance on class lessons (Marzano, 2003; Patall, Cooper & Robinson, 2008). When

parents assist their child with homework, it provides them the opportunity to experience

the learning process while reinforcing the importance of schoolwork at home (Epstein &

Van Voorhis, 2001; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005; Pomerantz, et al., 2006). Parental

involvement at home is reported to affect a student’s achievement in a positive way.

Epstein (1991), found that parents’ involvement and engagement in their child’s

homework is related to children’s improved reading achievement. Also, children who

received help with their schoolwork at home were shown to have an increase positive

attitude toward homework, personal competence, and self- regulation (Hoover- Dempsey

et al., 2001) and reduced behavioral problems (Domina, 2005).

In addition to positive student outcomes, parents are also shown to benefit from

helping their child at home. Shaver & Walls (1998) reported that parents in a Title I

school who participated in workshops and were given packaged materials for home

instruction, as well as parenting classes, saw an improvement in their child’s reading and

math achievement (Shaver & Walls, 1998). Identifying the gaps and strengths between

teacher and parents’ beliefs and expectations of parental involvement and work

collaboratively together to find a solution to strengthen their dynamic, in doing so, an

explanation of some of the barriers parents face may help to understand how to better

engage parents in schools.

73

Barriers of Parental Involvement

Despite the overwhelming amount of research that supports parental involvement

in schools, there continues to be a gap in CLED schools receiving high level of parental

involvement (Moles, 2000). Across the literature there is a pattern of reoccurring themes

that appear over and over again. Four major factors of a student’s family dynamic that

significantly determines the types of parental involvement are education levels, ethnicity,

socio-economic status, gender and family structure. Each of these barriers was examined

and the findings from the literature are described.

Education

A parent’s educational background may influence the way they engage in parental

involvement in their child’s education. A research study focused on families of CLED

backgrounds, by Dauber and Epstein (1993), sampled 317 parents to investigate the

predictors of parental participation in their child’s education. The authors concluded that

the parent’s level of education was positively related to school participation (Dauber &

Epstein, 1993). Parents that had a higher level of education also had a higher level of

involvement in their child’s school compared with parents who were less educated

(Dauber & Epstein, 1993). Little research has been conducted on the direct relationship

between a parent’s level of education and parental involvement. However, a parent’s

education is a variable that does not stand on its own. The higher the level of education a

parent has the higher level of opportunities for jobs and income they possess. The same is

true for homes where both parents work. Education is the basis for income, and income is

a predictor for the level of parental involvement.

74

Socioeconomic Status of Families

Socio-economic status (SES) describes an individual's or a group’s overall

position on a hierarchical social scale, defined by elements of wealth, power, social

status, education, occupation, income, home and location (Mueller & Parcel, 1981). The

direct role that socioeconomic status plays in a parent’s level of involvement in their

child’s education is unclear. Literature exists supporting SES as a significant indicator

for the level of parental involvement and student academic achievement, reporting that

the higher the income, the higher the levels of both achievement and involvement

(Cooper, Crosnoe, Suizzo, & Pituch, 2010; Duncan, Rodrigues, & Morris, 2011; Jeynes,

2005b; Muijs, Harris, Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2004; NCES, 2011).

Research conducted by Brown and Beckett (2007), established a correlation

between the level of parent involvement and income. In a similar study, Lareau (1987;

1989) found that the level of engagement in their child’s education is dependent on

whether or not parents are of working-class or middle-class status. Lareau (1987; 1989)

also concluded that students whose parents were from middle-class families, with a

higher level of education, had more advantages compared to working-class families.

Engaging parents in parental involvement in order to raise student academic

outcomes becomes an issue of equity because the level of parental involvement is higher

in middle and high class parents compared to families from lower incomes (De Carvalho,

2011). Parents from CLED backgrounds may lack the education, resources and tools to

prepare their child for academic success. Children from higher income homes receive the

tools for academic success from both their home and school. In a case study conducted on

parental involvement in elementary education among families from economically

distressed households, a program was created to support families and teach them

75

effective strategies to engage in their child’s education. The study found that the creation

and implementation of the purposeful initiatives to engage parents’ participation

positively influenced the level of parental involvement (Smith, 2006). There were also

other benefits to students and parents from the strategies implemented. The school was

not only a place to serve children and their education; it was used as a community center

where families could receive resources such as clothing, parenting strategies and more

(Smith, 2006).

A similar correlation was also found at the beginning of a student’s academic

career. Pre-kindergarten (pre-K) was an initiative created in public schools to serve

children who were at risk of future school failure. In a study conducted by Pianta (2006),

the researchers focus was on the status of children and families in public pre-K

initiatives. Four domains that have contributed to a child’s development were identified:

socio-demographics, parental well-being, family functioning and neighborhood quality.

This study investigated whether the domains were associated with academic and/or social

competence. The study concluded that pre-K students from households with higher

incomes had greater resources for education, had more developed language and math

skills, and exhibited fewer behavior problems compared to children from lower

socioeconomic statuses (SES).

Many factors play a role in how well young children become ready for school.

One important element is the SES of the family. In a study investigating the relationship

between home environment and school readiness, the authors concluded that the SES of a

family affects the early language skills of a child from 6 - 63 months of age (Boivin,

Dionne, Forget-Dubois, Lemelin, Persusse, Tremblay, 2009). The SES level was a

76

predictor of the amount of reading a child was exposed to. Higher levels of exposure to

reading were correlated with higher levels of school readiness (Boivin, et al., 2009).

Children whose parents had higher SES read to their toddlers more than parents with

lower SES (Boivin et al., 2009). The result of higher levels of exposure to reading

resulted in the toddler having more developed language skills and school readiness

(Boivin et al., 2009).

Literature exists supporting SES as playing a significant role in the level of

parental involvement and student academic achievement, reporting that the higher the

income, the higher levels of achievement and involvement (Cooper, Crosnoe, Suizzo, &

Pituch, 2010; Duncan, Rodrigues, & Morris, 2011; Jeynes, 2005a; Muijs, Harris,

Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2004; NCES, 2011). Despite reported research associated with

SES and student achievement and parental involvement levels, there have been reports of

schools that have experienced significant student achievement and involvement of

parents despite barriers such as lower socioeconomic statuses (Education Trust, 2003).

Epstein posits that schools can engage parents from CLED backgrounds by creating

comprehensive initiatives and building partnerships between the home and school. She

states,

Status variables are not the most important measures for understanding parent

involvement. At all grade levels, the evidence suggests that school policies,

teacher practices, and family practices are more important than race, parent

education, family size, marital status, and even grade level in determining whether

parents continue to be part of their children’s education. (1990, p.109)

In a study investigating levels and types of parental involvement among minority

and low-income families, reported results indicated that parents were highly engaged in

the dimensions of providing an environment for learning, communicating messages about

77

hard work, and school success (Duncan, et al., 2011). Chavkin (1993) proposes that most

parents, regardless of socioeconomic position, are quite willing to be involved in the

education of their children, but some lack the knowledge of how to be involved at home

or at school. How educators can begin to improve schools and activate parental

involvement initiatives can be seen in the recent successes of the following schools.

In 2000, Chattanooga, Tennessee had nine of twenty schools listed as the lowest

performing schools in Tennessee. In one of the most notable reform efforts, Chattanooga

turned many of their schools into high performing schools by 2005, by tackling the

barriers of schools educating minority students from low-income backgrounds (Education

Trust, 2013). These schools moved from being rated as the “worst” to “the fastest

improving” in the state.

Another example is with Peabody Elementary in Missouri consisting of 99% low-

income and 100% African American. Students outperformed the state in both reading and

math and steadily increased their scores for the past four years (Education Trust, 2003).

Similarly, Elemont Memorial Junior-Senior High School is an institution containing

nearly 90% of minority students with 24% receiving free and reduced lunches. This

school outperformed the state of New York in major core subjects in reading and math.

One common theme found across these schools is the recognition of parental

involvement in its mission statement and its educators recognizing the value of a parent’s

role. Another commonality is that these schools had high expectations for teachers,

staffed their faculty with high quality teachers, valued the opinions of their faculty and

community members and provided professional development training to provide teachers

the tools to support their students. Regardless of income, and based on the

aforementioned reported literature, it is important to understand the context and culture in

which the families reside so that parental involvement initiatives may be implemented

and supported by schools.

78

Gender and Family Structure

As children progress in their early academic career, the level of parental

involvement moves from very involved to less involved. This could be due to the

growing independence a child gains, as he gets older. A study conducted by Grolnick,

Benjet, Kurowski, and Apostoleris (2006), examined the factors of engaging parent

participation in their child’s education from an urban community. Three factors were

recognized: parent and child characteristics, family context, and teacher behavior and

attitudes. The sample consisted of 209 3rd-5th-grade children, their families and 28 of

their teachers. Parents, teachers, and students were questioned based on three types of

involvement: school, cognitive, and personal. The findings revealed that children from

single-parent families were less involved in the aforementioned types of involvement

compared to children from two-parent families. A possible explanation for these results is

because single parents may have financial demands, which require one or more jobs, in

order to provide for their family. Single parents therefore, may have limited time to

engage in their child’s education due to financial strains and other burdens.

Few research studies have investigated the individual contribution mothers and

fathers have in engaging in their child’s learning and involvement with the school. Even

less research has been conducted into the specific role a father plays in their child’s

schooling. Historically, fathers have been seen as the breadwinners and providers for

their families. However, the family dynamic of roles has shifted. With the change in

family structure, it is important to reevaluate the roles parents have, especially the father,

as their level of involvement has been overlooked. According to the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES, 2011), data were collected from January to April of 1996 as

79

part of the National Household Education survey results were consistent with other

studies that have been conducted that support the findings that mothers are more willing

to be engaged in their children’s education as compared to fathers (NCES, 1997). A

study conducted by NCES, researchers examined the level of parental involvement of

resident (excluding foster) and nonresident fathers are involved in their children’s schools

and observed the impact their involvement had on their child’s performance in school.

Data was collected from 16, 910 parents of children that were in K-12th

grades. Then,

fathers were asked which adult in their home participated in four types of school based

activities for the specific academic year: (1) attending a general school meeting; (2)

attending a regularly scheduled parent-teacher conference with the child’s teacher; (3)

attending a school or class event; and (4) volunteering at the school (NCES, 1997). If a

father participated in zero to one of the activities, it was related to have little no

involvement. The majority of the sample who had one or more parents, who were not in

the child’s home, had fathers that were not living with the child. A total of 6,908 who had

a non-resident parent, 5,440 had nonresident fathers. These findings posed several

questions specifically relating the level of contribution fathers have in their child’s life.

The questions were:

How do fathers compare with mothers in the level of engagement in their child’s

school; does a father’s participation increase or decrease as a child gets older; In

homes with two-parents, is there a difference between only having one parent as

compared to both? What variables encourage nonresident fathers to participate in

their child’s education?” (NCES, 1997)

In regards to how fathers compare with a mother’s level of involvement, NCES

80

(1997) concluded that fathers in a two-parent family were more likely than mothers to be

highly involved with the child’s school. Among children in kindergarten through 5th

grade, the strongest influences on the involvement of nonresident fathers are mothers’

education and involvement in the children’s schools (NCED, 1997). Data collected

showed that fathers participated in at least three of the four aforementioned activities.

However, single parent homes, led by mothers or fathers, showed similarly high level of

involvement (NCES, 1997). In two-parent families, it was found that mothers take on the

majority of the responsibility for the children and therefore are more involved with their

child’s education and school (NCES, 1997).

As a child gets older, father’s, much like a mother’s, level of involvement begins

to decrease (NCES, 1997) but at different rates. Decrease in an involvement can be due to

several factors such as the child developing a higher level of autonomy and

independence; therefore not relying on the parent as much for support. Another reason, as

stated by NCES (1997), is the school’s decline in offering opportunities to engage with

parents. Students with mothers who are highly involved in their education and school

begins to gradually decline as the child continues to each grade level-this evidence was

found in both two-parent and in single-mother families (NCES, 1997). However, the

proportion of children who have highly involved fathers does not decline steadily. The

comparison of children with highly involved fathers in two-parent families decreases

from 30% to 25% between elementary (grades K-5) and middle school (grades 6-8), but

slightly decreases to 23%, in high school (grades 9-12) (NCES, 1997). Children living in

single-father families showed a steady pattern of involvement within their child’s

academic career. Researchers found no decrease of highly involved fathers between

81

elementary and middle schools (53% at both grade levels), however a large reduction

between middle and high schools (27%) (NCES, 1997).

Results from cross-tabulations inform that when both parents are highly involved

with their child’s school, their children are better off (NCES, 1997). Data show that

when both parents are involved, children are more likely to get better grades, enjoy

learning and school, participate in school activities and are less likely to be retained in

school as compared to single parent homes with the mother leading the household

(NCES, 1997). There is no significant difference in the success between children that live

in single or two parent homes and level of engagement of the four measured criteria (1)

attending a general school meeting; (2) attending a regularly scheduled parent-teacher

conference with the child’s teacher; (3) attending a school or class event; and (4)

volunteering at the school (NCES, 1997). As long as at least one parent is highly

involved, the parents will engage at about the same level, regardless if the parent is the

mother or father (NCES, 1997). It is important however to note that the number of homes

where fathers are highly involved is a small number. When neither parent is involved, a

child performs the worst when compared to highly involve parents (NCES, 1997).

Through a cross-sectional survey (NCES, 1997) it was found that a father’s

involvement is exceptionally important in regard to their child’s academic performance in

the 6th through 12th grade. In two-parent families and single parent families, fathers’

involvement, was associated with an increased likelihood that children in the 1st through

5th grades earned mostly A’s. However, the father’s influence declines once the father’s

academic expectations for their children and the number of activities they share at home

with their children decrease (NCES, 1997).

82

In response to the findings, NCES continued their investigation and conducted a

National Household Education Survey the following year. This survey measured the

extent to which fathers and mothers are engage in their child’s school and the connection

of the level of involvement to five measures based on how children were performing in

schools (NCES, 1997). The survey was conducted through phone interviews with

parents/guardian of over 20,700 children ranging from three years old through 12th

grade

(NCES, 1997). Parents’ level of involvement was measured by the number of activities

they participated in for the academic school year. Examples of types of activities

measured were parent conferences, general school meetings, attending school events and

volunteering. Parents were considered highly involved if they had participated in three or

more of the activities and not very involved if they participated in zero or one activity

(NCES, 1997). Any amount between two and three was considered moderately involved.

The first conclusion from the survey was that the involvement of both fathers and

mothers in their child’s education is essential for their achievement and behavior (NCES,

1997). The significance parental involvement plays in a child’s has been identified for

many years, however, it has been assumed primarily to mean a mother’s involvement

(NCES, 1997). However, based on the data collected cross sectional study, a father’s

level of involvement is just as important. A second major finding was that fathers in two-

parent families had overall low levels of involvement in their children’s schools. Nearly

half of the fathers participated in only to one of the rated activities (NCES, 1997).

Mother’s on the other hand showed significantly higher levels of involvement. Only 21%

of mothers in two parent homes, 26% of mothers in single parent homes, and 29% of

fathers in father-only homes reported to have low levels of participation (NCES, 1997).

83

The final conclusion is that kids have an advantage when nonresident fathers go

beyond maintaining contact and instead are active in their child’s school (NCES, 1997).

The hands on engagement of nonresident fathers are highly correlated to a child’s

behavior. Behavior was measured by whether or not the student had been suspended,

expelled or repeated a grade. Children who have a nonresident father who is not active in

the school do not perform any differently from children who have no contact with their

fathers (NCES, 1997).

These findings suggest that when fathers are in a two-parent household, the

mother is often the main person responsibility in a child’s education (NCES, 1997).

When fathers are involved, students perform at higher levels than if they are not. These

pieces of data are especially important because it shows that fathers need more

opportunities to engage in their child’s school and schools can begin to target this

initiative. Since little research and action plans structuring around fathers has been

reported, it is advisable to include participation of fathers (NCES, 1997).

Race/Ethnicity

The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K) (1998) examined

achievement of minority kindergarteners. The study found that two-thirds of a standard

deviation were below White, non-minority in math (about 10 points on a test with a mean

of 100 and a standard deviation of 15) and a little below half a standard deviation (about

7-8 points) below Whites in reading (Freyer & Levitt, 2004).

For years, researchers have attempted to understand the reasons for this disparity.

One possible explanation is the ethnic and racial inequalities minorities have experienced

historically. The gaps in racial differences in family SES of the children in the ECLS-K

84

study nearly matched the gap in assessment scores (Freyer & Levitt, 2004). The

socioeconomic level average of black kindergartners was greater than two-thirds of a

standard deviation below the average of whites (Freyer & Levitt, 2004). Also, Hispanic

children had a lower SES compared to whites (Freyer & Levitt, 2004). These findings

suggest that kindergarten White students of families with higher SES performed better

academically than minority students from lower incomes. It is important to note that other

studies have found results contrary to the aforementioned studies and students regardless

of income have been found to be just as successful as their white counterpart when

schools work together with the family and community to develop a partnership where the

assets of individuals are utilized to support student learning (Henderson & Mapp, 2002).

In a study conducted by Epstein (1995), the role parents’ played in and out of the

classroom based on their ethnicity was investigated. The study focused on how the

parents communicated, the level they volunteered, and what type of support they used at

home to help their child in their education. Type 4 from the Epstein (1995) parental

involvement in encourages parents helping children learn at home. In this study teachers

assumed that it was the parents’ responsibility to assist in school based learning

assignments. Lareau (1996) questions whether minority parents, possess the knowledge

and skill base to teach and assist their children with assignments from school. On the

contrary, Wakins (1997) found that African American parents, with less education, think

they can teach and support their child at home. In a similar study, it was found that all

low-income parents, with less education, believe that it is their responsibility to supervise

their child’s homework (Smrekar & Cohen-Vogel, 2001).

85

Fan, Williams & Wolters (2012), investigated parental involvement in various

constructs of school motivation such as academic self-efficacy in mathematics and

English, intrinsic motivation in math and English and engagement among four main

ethnic groups: Caucasian, African American, Asian American, and Hispanic students.

Using a structural equation model analysis, Fan, Williams & Wolters (2012), concluded

several findings: (1) The communication between home and school and the guidance

schools provided was positively correlated the intrinsic academic motivation of English

among Hispanic students but negatively related to Asian students and their intrinsic

motivation of math; and (2) School functions that engaged parents in the educational

process of their child “sporadically affected” the motivational efficacy of Caucasian and

African American students. Among the differences of ethnicity, there were also

communalities among the ethnicities. Parents that held aspirations for their children

educational experience were positively correlated to overall school motivation. However,

parents that had communicated issues with student problems with the school negatively

predicted student school motivation constructs among all ethnic groups.

Based on a sample of the research of the influence ethnicity has on parental

involvement, it is assumed that parents want to support their children. But, regardless of

whether a parent feels equipped to support their child at home, the school must maintain

strong and clear expectations and use purposeful support systems that will support all

students, and all families regardless of ethnicity.

86

Summary of Parental Involvement Barriers

Initiatives such as NCLB and Title I, aim to close the disparity between whites

and minorities. Now more than ever, before history continues the educational inequity

pattern, further research must be conducted to learn the best practices schools from lower

income areas can use in order to experience maximum achievement. Further research

must be developed to investigate what is effective and non- effective for schools with

variety of incomes, parent education, ethnicities and cultures to ensure that the total

population of our schools and their students are reaching their full potential. A reported

priority for building relationships that establish trust and collaboration, and tear down

these aforementioned barriers, goes unwritten and is an essential component in

establishing a partnership between schools and families (Epstein, 2010).

Parent Expectations and Reading Achievement

There is a vast amount of research that links family involvement in a child’s

educational career with an increase in a child’s reading achievement and academic

achievement (PEW, 2007). In addition parents who have books at home have children

that excel compared to households with no books (Evans, Kelly, Sikora & Treiman,

2010). Books are important for a child to be exposed to fundamental reading skills.

Research proves that children with families from CLED backgrounds fair just as well as

higher income and education families, if children have access to books at home (Evans,

Kelly, Sikora & Treiman, 2010).

In a study focusing on interventions that determined if parent involvement of

children’s reading activities influenced a children’s reading acquisition, the results of 16

key interventions among the 1,340 subjects that participated in the study were revealed

87

(Sénéchal & Laura, 2008). Examples of reading acquisition components were the ability

to identifying letters, sounds and words. The results indicated that parental involvement

had a positive impact on students reading achievement in regards to reading acquisition

(Sénéchal & Laura, 2008), in addition to creating a positive learning environment at

home. An intervention that proved to be the most influential involved parents tutoring

their child using specific reading activities that had a higher impact on reading

achievement compared to parents who simply listened to their child read them to them

(Sénéchal & Laura, 2008). An example of specific strategies would be decoding text and

promoting comprehension skills. One of the recommendations from this study, based on

the significance of the results, was for teachers to encourage and train parents on the most

effective forms of engaging in the reading process with their child. This is an example of

Epstein’s Type 4, “Learning at home” of her parental involvement model that suggests

educators provide information and techniques for families to support their child at home

(Epstein, 1995). When parents are involved in specific activities, and are knowledgeable

of the skills that engage and expose their children to reading and comprehension skills,

children have a higher level of reading achievement (Sénéchal & Laura, 2008).

In one particular study, researchers investigated the dynamic between parental

involvement, self-regulated learning (SRL), and reading achievement among fifth graders

using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Class of 1998-1999. Six

indicators were created based on behaviors and activities that promoted SRL in fifth

graders. The six were identified as: 1) School Involvement, 2) TV Rules, 3) Homework

Help, 4) Homework Frequency, 5) Parental Education Expectations, and 6)

Extracurricular Activities (Xu, Benson, Camino & Steiner, 2010). It was found that

88

parents who support their children in their homework have high academic expectations,

and encouraged participation in extracurricular activities, promoted students reading

achievement (Xu et al., 2010). Reading achievement was defined as knowledge and

proficiency in language and literacy, measured on a product and/or process (Myers,

1991). School involvement and parent expectations were rated as the greatest influencers

of student achievement in reading (Xu et al., 2010). On an important note, the results of

the study showed that SRL mediated the relationship between parental involvement and

reading achievement (Xu et al., 2010).

Epstein’s Framework for a SFCP

When schools begin to develop and create parental involvement programs they

often use a guide, framework or model. One of the most widely used and commonly

known is Joyce Epstein’s Model of Parental Involvement (2009). It’s important to note

that this is not a one-size fits all approach when creating specific methods or activities for

engaging parents in schools. Epstein’s framework can have varying practices, based on

the unique needs of the community each school serves (Epstein et al., 2009).

The basis of Epstein’s model is drawn from her definition of parental involvement

as schools, families and communities taking an active role in providing an environment

of learning (Epstein et al., 2009). Epstein believes that the most successful families and

schools share responsibilities in the achievement of a child and therefore parents and

schools must work collaboratively (Epstein, 2010). The framework includes six types of

involvement that focus around comprehensive and high-quality initiatives of school,

family and community partnerships (Epstein, 2001). The model aids in the process of

schools developing comprehensive parental involvement initiatives and also helps

89

researchers understand the types of engagement activities and their outcomes and how to

improve practices (Epstein, 2010).

Epstein’s model is used as a tool to help support the child, both at home and

school and to inform educators and parents on the paths to achieving this goal (Epstein,

2010). The goal of the model is to help schools engage parents in becoming partners in

their student’s education (Epstein & Hollifield, 1996). One of the main reasons for using

Epstein’s model is that it provides a theoretical explanation of the types of parental

involvement, yet also specifies what this looks likes in schools, defining each type of

engagement, describing example practices (see Figure 4), challenges and benefits

(Epstein, 2010).

Epstein’s Six Types of Parental Involvement

Type I: Parenting. Parenting is defined as the “establishment of a home

environment that supports their children as students” (Epstein et al., 2009, p. 16).

Teachers can provide workshops on parenting and child rearing; organize training for

parents, such as GED preparation courses. Opportunities for college credit, and family

literacy training assist in locating family support programs that improve health and

nutrition may also be provided (Lewis, Yanghee, Juanita, 2011). This suggests an

opportunity for both the parent and child to experience the importance of education.

These experiences provide the parents with the tools to understand how they can help

their child at home (Epstein, 2010).

There are potential challenges in encouraging parents’ participation at home

(Epstein, 2010). Providing information for all families in a way that fits everyone’s

schedule, or developing alternative ways to deliver the information could prove to be

90

difficult. Also, the information provided must be clearly and purposively communicated,

if language is a barrier, then translators need to be involved (Epstein et al., 2009). If

schools can provide opportunities for parents to learn how to support their children at

home, there can be many benefits for the student, family and teacher.

Norwood, Atkinson, Tellez, & Saldana, (1997) found that children have better

gains on reading and math standardized tests, and have fewer disruptive behaviors when

parents are involved at home. Students also can develop positive habits, beliefs, and

values learned from family members (Epstein, et al., 2002). Becoming more active at

home can strengthen the relationship between parent and child, creating more trust

between them (Epstein et al., 2009). Parents may also develop a better understanding of

their child and development. Through engaging in activities that support parental

involvement, teachers can gain a better understanding of families’ backgrounds, cultures,

goals, issues and opinions (Epstein, et al., 2002).

Type 2: Communicating. Epstein, (et al., 2009) defines the second component of

the framework as “Having effective forms of school-to-home and home-to school

communication about school programs and children’s progress.” To strengthen the

communication between the parent and school, several initiatives may be implemented

(Epstein et al., 2009, p.16). Teachers can offer parent conferences, at minimum once a

year, and continue to have follow-up meetings. For non-English speaking parents,

translators could ensure full understanding on behalf of both parties. Teachers can also

send home notes/letters that address school policies, information of programs and

activities within the school (Epstein, 2010). A folder of student work and other

91

informative content pertaining to the child can also be used as a form of communication

in updating parents of their child’s progress (Epstein, 2010).

Before these ideas can be effectively communicated, there are some barriers that

need to be addressed. Families who do not speak English may find some of the notices or

student work unreadable. Also, schools that provide information via email or Internet

may not be able to reach those families who do not have those capabilities. When these

challenges are addressed, and schools use the aforementioned methods, there are several

benefits for the teacher, students and their family. Miedel & Reynolds (1999) found that

preschoolers were less likely to be retained in special education programs up to Grade 8,

when parents were more involved. Students may also experience an awareness of their

own progress, and actions needed to continue their growth. Students and parents can gain

a higher level of understanding of school policies on behavior, attendance, and other

areas that affect their student (Epstein, et al., 2002). Parents can monitor a child’s

progress, and interactions with teachers may become easier because of the willingness to

help (Epstein, et al., 2002). Teachers may use a more diverse way of communication and

develop an understanding of family views of programs and progress (Epstein, et al.,

2002).

Type 3: Volunteering at school. Volunteering at school is a form of parental

involvement that is defined as “parent’s help and support in the school” (Lewis, et al.,

2011, p.16). Schools can encourage volunteerism among parents by sending home

surveys to identify available talents, times and location of volunteers (Epstein, et al.,

2002). Schools should have a dedicated space where families and volunteers can share

resources (Epstein, et al., 2002). Teachers can also establish a volunteer program that

92

involves parents in the classrooms and a telephone tree to support communication among

parents.

There are challenges to engaging parents in volunteerism. Schools can recruit

volunteers widely so that all families know their time and talents are welcome. Also

scheduling may be difficult, therefore it is necessary to develop flexible schedules for

volunteers, assemblies, and events to enable parents who work during the day to

participate (Epstein, et al., 2002). After these challenges are addressed, the benefits for

students are an increased awareness of their parents’ skills and involvement (Lewis, et al,

2011). Hill and Craft (2003) found that parental involvement of African American

parents’ increased parental involvement at home and improved academic behavior of

their children at school. In another study, Miedel and Reynolds (1999) discovered that

students’ whose parents were involved in volunteering had reduced behavior problems

and improved reading achievement. Volunteering also helped parents understand the role

of the teacher and his duties and built self-confidence about their ability to work with

staff and students (Epstein, et al., 2002). Teachers may benefit by having a lighter

workload and become aware of the talents and interests of the community.

Type 4: Learning at home. Helping children at home can be another method of

support the parent can offer their child (Epstein, 2010). Parental assistance of their child’s

learning at home is defined as “Providing information and ideas about how to help

students at home with homework and other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and

planning” (Epstein et al., 2009, p. 16). Both the teachers and schools can facilitate this

process by providing clear and detailed information on homework policies and skills,

including strategies and calendars that list homework, and other activities for the

93

community (Epstein, et al., 2002). During the summertime, teachers can also offer

additional learning activities or programs at school to continue the development of the

children.

Reaching parents and students outside of the school can be a complex task.

Maintaining schedules may be difficult if multiple people are involved (Epstein, 2010).

Also, in some of the aforementioned methods, children might be responsible to relay

information to the parents, which the parent may or may not receive (Epstein, 2010). If

the student has several teachers, a schedule of the homework and structure may vary

among subjects.

It is reported that if parents help their children at home, greater benefits can be

reaped compared to efforts that lack parent’s help. Hoover- Dempsey et al., (2001) found

that the greater parental involvement at home, the higher positive attitude towards

homework, personal competence, and self-regulation the student had. Parents can also

learn how to support and engage their children in learning at home (Epstein, et al., 2002).

Type 5: Decision-making. Parents participation in decision making at school can

be defined as “Parents’ involvement in decision making in school through becoming

leaders and representatives” (Epstein et al., 2009, p. 16). In order to support parental

decision making, schools can create PTOs and PTAs, an advisory council, organize

advocacy groups, encourage parents in becoming part of representatives, district-level

councils and committees and “develop a network to link all families with parent

representatives” (Epstein et al., 2009, p. 16). It is important to include an equal

representation of parents involved in the decision making process to ensure diverse

voices are heard. Parent leaders should represent all types of ethnicities and

94

socioeconomic statuses so every opinion and input is offered from a variety of

stakeholders (Epstein, 2010).

When parents’ aid in the decision making process of a school, the children may

have an awareness of and appreciation for the representation of families in school

decisions, and understand that student rights are protected (Epstein, et al., 2002). Sheldon

and Epstein (2002) found that parents who were involved had children who experienced

fewer detentions. Parents also have the opportunity to take ownership of their child’s

education and the school. The opportunity to share opinions and experiences and gain an

understanding of school policies is also another benefit.

Type 6: Collaborating with the community. Collaboration between schools and

communities can take on many forms. Epstein, (et al., 2009, p.16) defines community

collaboration as “parents’ connection with the resources and services in the community to

strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development.” To

strengthen the bond between the school and community, teachers can provide information

on health fairs, cultural events, recreational events, social support networks, and summer

programs that are available in the community (Epstein et al., 2002). Schools can identify

and integrate resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs,

family practices, and student learning, development and wellbeing (Epstein et al., 2002).

Challenges arise when dealing with location and issues of responsibilities, funds, staff,

and locations for collaborative activities (Epstein, 2010). In addition, providing equitable

opportunities for both students and families to participate in community programs may be

a difficult task with highly populated areas (Epstein, 2010).

95

Schools that participate in collaboration with the community have students with

increased skills and talents through enriched curricular and extracurricular experiences,

and awareness of careers and possibilities for future prospects (Epstein, et al., 2002). In

one study, students perceived their parents to have higher academic and vocational

aspirations for them and received more assistance with homework (Seitsinger et al.,

2008). In another study conducted by Gutman & Mcloyd (2000) children from inner-city

areas who had parents explicitly involved in community resources for their

extracurricular and religious activities were high achievers. Parents may also “gain

knowledge and use of local resources by family and child to increase skills and talents or

to obtain needed services interactions with other families in community activities”

(Epstein et al., 2009, p.16). Collaboration may develop an increased awareness of the

school's role in the community and its contributions among parents. Through

collaboration teachers may also gain an insight to resources and services the community

may offer to the school and families (Epstein, 2010).

The transformation of education to incorporate parental involvement can be

incorporated and facilitated through Epstein’s Parental Involvement model. Stakeholders

in education must begin to consider how the bond between the school and home can be

strengthened. It is the duty of schools to put forth the effort to engage and develop the

relationship between the school and community. Schools can educate both the student

and their parent. The community can also offer “gifts” to school members. Bringing the

parents into the students’ learning is a “win, win” situation because both sides can learn

and benefit from each other (Epstein, 2010).

Epstein’s Framework of Six Types of Involvement Defined

Type 1

Parenting

Type 2

Communicating

Type 3

Volunteering

Type 4

Learning at Home

Type 5

Decision Making

Type 6

Collaborating with

the Community

Def

init

ion

Help all

families

establish home

environments

to support

children as

students.

Design effective

forms of school-to-

home and home-to-

school

communication

about school

programs and

children’s progress.

Recruit and

organize parent

help and support.

Provide information

and ideas to

families about how

to help

students at home

with homework and

other curriculum

related

activities, decisions,

and planning.

Include parents

in

school

decisions,

developing

parent

leaders and

representatives.

Identify and

integrate

resources and

services from the

community to

strengthen school

programs, family

practices, and

student learning

and development.

Figure 3. Definitions of Epstein’s Six Types of Parental Involvement.

96

Sample Practices for Epstein’s Types of Parental Involvement

Type 1

Parenting

Type 2

Communicating

Type 3

Volunteering

Type 4

Learning at Home

Type 5

Decision Making

Type 6

Collaborating with

the Community

Sam

ple

Pra

ctic

es

Suggestions for

home conditions

that support

learning at each

grade level:

Parent education

and other courses

or training for

parents (e.g.,

GED, college

credit, family

literacy).

Family support

programs to assist

families with

health, nutrition,

and other services

Home visits at

transition points

to preschool

Conferences with every

parent at least once a

year, with follow-ups as

needed.

Language translators to

assist families as

needed.

Weekly or monthly

folders of student work

sent home for review

and comments.

Parent/student pickup

of report card, with

conferences on

improving grades.

Regular schedule of

useful notices, memos,

phone calls,

newsletters, and other

communication

School and

classroom

volunteer program

to help teachers,

administrators,

students, and other

parents.

Parent room or

family center for

volunteer work,

meetings,

resources for

families.

Annual postcard

survey to identify

all available

talents, times and

locations of

volunteers.

Information for

families on skills

required for

students in all

subjects at each

grade.

Information on

homework policies

and how to monitor

and discuss

schoolwork at

home.

Information on how

to assist students to

improve skills on

various class and

school assessments.

Regular schedule of

homework that

Active PTA/PTO or

other parent

organizations

advisory councils,

or committees (e.g.,

curriculum, safety,

personnel) for

parent leadership

and participation.

Independent

advocacy groups to

lobby and work for

school reform and

improvement.

District-level

councils and

committees for

family and

community

involvement.

Information for

students and

families on

community health,

cultural,

recreational, social

support, and other

programs or

services.

Information on

community

activities that link

to learning skills

and talents,

including summer

programs for

students.

Service integration

through

partnerships

involving school,

Figure 4: Sample practices for Epstein’s types of parental involvement (Adapted from Epstein, 2010).

97

Figure 4(cont’d.)

Epstein’s Framework of Six Types of Involvement - Examples

Type 1

Parenting

Type 2

Communicating

Type 3

Volunteering

Type 4

Learning at Home

Type 5

Decision Making

Type 6

Collaborating with

the Community

Sa

mp

le P

ract

ices

Elementary,

middle, and high

school.

Neighborhood

meetings to help

families

understand

schools and to

help schools

understand

families.

Clear information on

choosing schools or

courses, programs, and

activities within

schools.

Clear information on all

school policies,

programs, reforms, and

transitions.

Class parent,

telephone tree, or

other structures to

provide all

families with

needed

information.

Parent patrols or

other activities to

aid safety and

operation of

school programs.

Requires students to

discuss and interact

with families on

what they are

learning in class.

Calendars with

activities for parents

and students at

home.

Family math,

science, and reading

activities at school.

Summer learning

packets or

activities.

Information on

school or local

elections for school

representatives.

Networks to link all

families with parent

representatives.

Civic, counseling,

cultural, health,

recreation, and

other agencies and

organizations and

businesses.

Service to the

community by

students, families,

and school (e.g.,

recycling, art,

music, drama, and

other activities for

senior or others).

Participation of

alumni in school

activities.

98

99

Limitations of Epstein’s Model

Although Epstein’s model is commonly used, it is not without limitations. Some

have argued that Epstein’s model is derived from traditional parental involvement forms

and is created for white, middle to higher income families (Fields-Smith, 2007; Freeman,

2010; Hill & Craft, 2003; Lee & Bowen, 2006). A major criticism is that the model does

not include some of the cultural and collectivistic forms of involvement minority groups

experience and does not capture some of the non-traditional forms of parental

involvement practiced by minority parents (Trumbull, Rothstein, Quiroz, & Greenfield,

2001). Researchers Bower and Griffin, (2011), defined traditional forms of involvement

as parents attending conferences, school events and volunteering at the school.

Nontraditional forms were defined by parents participating in home learning, building

relationships, participating in community event and parents taking ownership of some

fashion in school (Bower & Griffin, 2011). Simoni and Adelman (1993) argue, through

the lens of Epstein’s traditional model, many minority parents do not appear to be active

or involved in their child’s education. Bower and Griffin (2011), suggest that this may be

due to the “required investments” of the allocations of time and money from families.

When parents are not able to fulfill these resources they are viewed as not highly

involved in their child’s education.

Bower and Griffin (2011) contend that many researches who use Epstein’s model

do not differentiate, or take into account, cultural, ethnic or socio-economic differences in

families, instead providing a general blanket approach to engaging in parents (Tillman

2009). For example, Fields-Smith (2009) claims that in Epstein’s model, African

American families’ advocacy for their children is not identified. One of the major forms

100

of involvement in their community is their participation in church, which is not accounted

for in the model (Bradley, Johnson, Rawls, & Dodson-Sims, 2005).

Hill and Taylor, (2004) investigated the relationship between academic

achievement and income, and how those factors influence the types of parental

involvement. Hill and Taylor (2004) posit that families in poverty often face barriers

such as working in hourly-paying jobs, lack of transportation and lack of child care

resources that limit participating in or attending school events or volunteering. As a

result, these families participate in other ways such as engaging in informal conversations

about academics and behavior and unscheduled visits to the school (Freeman, 2010).

In 2007, a study was conducted investigating the understanding of parental

involvement among minority groups. Study results show that when parents defined

parental involvement, Latino parents stated that they found advocacy in “life

participation” more than “academic involvement” (Zarate, 2007). Zarate, (2007)

described life participation as being aware of a child’s life, teaching morals and values,

discussing future planning or volunteering to observe school settings. Academic

involvement was described as listening to a child read, attending school meetings,

participating in school events, going to the library together, seeking tutoring or academic

help for student needs, and asking question about homework (Zarate, 2007).

Based on the present literature and barriers to the model, the following types and

examples of involvement are suggested to be added to the model (Desimone, 1999):

relationship building, advocacy, setting expectations through conversations, engaging in

storytelling to teach their children valuable lessons, setting structures in the home for

students to be ready for school such as setting certain times for bed, waking up and

101

homework time, providing reward incentives for achievement in school, having

disciplinary consequences for negative school behaviors, asking questions about a

students day and establishing trust with the child (Zarate, 2007).

It is important to note that Epstein supplemented her framework with redefined

terms within each type in response to the reported barriers of the model, and criticisms

about the limitations of her model (Desimone, 1999). For example, in Type 6-

Collaborating with the community, Epstein redefines the term community to encompass a

wider range of activities going beyond the neighborhood and extending through all areas

within the community that engage a child in their learning and development (Epstein,

2010).

There is not a perfect system or model for every school and family to follow when

it comes to engaging in parental involvement. However, it is important to identify best

practices and implement evidence-based practices, including input from all stakeholders

involved, as well as teachers’, students’ and parent’s expectations of parental

involvement (Epstein, 2001). In addition, the barriers cited in the literature of the model

may also offer additional forms of parental involvement parents and teachers may expect.

Summary

Chapter two provided the rationale for the eight research questions of this study.

From a historical perspective, parental involvement initiatives have been in existence for

decades has been at the national forefront for decades. However challenges continue to

exist. Federal mandates and policies require school districts to implement parental

involvement practices. Despite the reported benefits and mandates schools are challenged

with creating parental involvement. Some of the reported barriers are the teacher and

102

student mismatch, a family’s income, language barriers and the lack of teacher

professional development trainings. The backgrounds of parent and teacher expectations

have been discussed to better understand the surrounding influential dynamics or the

topic. In addition, how parents and teachers impact a student’s reading achievement has

been reported in the literature review. As discussed, the theoretical framework of Epstein

Six Types of Involvement provides a guide to understanding the beliefs and expectations

and analyzing the relationships between the variables.

Chapter two provides an overview of the five areas reported in the literature

related to parents and teacher expectations of parental involvement and how it relates to

student academic achievement: (1) Historical overview of parental involvement; (2)

factors related to teacher’s beliefs and expectations of parental involvement; (3) factors

related to parent’s beliefs and expectations of parental involvement; and (4) Epstein’s

Framework of Parental Involvement (six types), including an in-depth description and

limitations. Chapter three will describe the methodologies utilized to conduct this study.

103

III. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The methodology chapter includes the research design, sample characteristics,

instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis procedures. This quantitative

correlational study has two primary objectives. These are: (1) to examine the beliefs and

expectations of parental involvement on the part of both teachers and parents in three

Title I elementary schools located in central Texas, and (2) to explore how these attitudes

correlate to a student’s academic reading achievement based on the reading portion of the

State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness exam (STAAR).

For objective (1) the independent variables of parent and teacher beliefs and

expectations were assessed through a likert-scale survey based on six dimensions of

Epstein’s Parental Involvement Framework for a SFCP. Academic achievement,

objective (2) was measured through data from students’ Reading STAAR scores.

The statistical approach used to interpret the data was a quantitative correlational

study design. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (v. 18, Chicago, Illinois,

2009) software was used for both descriptive and correlational analyses of socio-

demographic, survey data, and assessment scores to answer the following research

questions:

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between teachers’ beliefs about

parental involvement and student academic achievement as measured by Reading

STAAR scores?

104

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between teachers’ expectations

about their role in parental involvement and student academic achievement as measured

by Reading STAAR scores?

Research Question 3: What is the relationship between parents’ expectations

about their role in parental involvement and student academic achievement measured by

Reading STAAR scores?

Research Question 4: What is the relationship between parents’ beliefs about

parental involvement and student academic achievement measured by Reading STAAR

scores?

Research Question 5: Is there a relationship between teachers’ and parents’ beliefs

of parental involvement?

Research Question 6: Is there a relationship between teachers’ and parents’

expectations of parental involvement?

Research Question 7: Is the relationship between parent beliefs and academic

achievement moderated by parent demographics?

Research Question 8: Is the relationship between parent expectations and

academic achievement moderated by parent demographics?

Overview of the Analytic Method

The purpose of correlational research is to examine the relationship between two

or more quantitative variables and their implications for cause and effect within a

naturally occurring phenomenon such as in a school-educational setting (Fraenkel &

Wallen, 2009). Correlational research investigates the degree to which one or more

relationships exist within a study and identifies variables that will positively predict

105

outcomes (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). If a relationship exists, the aim is to establish a

regression equation that can be used to make predictions for the population of interest

(Simon, 2011). This type of research is used to help researchers make predictions about

relationships of variables based on data; evidence and causality cannot be inferred, only

the degree to which a relationship exists (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). Contrasted with

experimental research study design, the scores for variables are only measured without

any manipulation of any variable in order to determine if a correlation exists within its

natural setting (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). The degree to which the quantitative

variables in a study are related is measured using a correlation coefficient (Fraenkel &

Wallen, 2009).

A quantitative, correlational study design serves as the analytic method in this

investigation, measuring the correlation between the independent variables (teachers’ and

parents’ beliefs and expectations) and dependent variables (students’ reading

achievement scores. Thus, this statistical approach was used to analyze the associative

relationships between the independent variables based on the six dimensions of parental

involvement (Parenting, Communicating, Volunteering, Learning at Home, Decision

Making and Collaborating with the Community) measured through parent and teacher

surveys and the dependent variable of student achievement scores as measured through

the Reading STAAR. In addition, the demographic variables of parents and teachers was

tested as a moderator and consisted of the exogenous independent variables of

race/ethnicity (White, non-Hispanic, Hispanic/Latino, African American and other), sex

(male and female), age (years), level of education (total years completed). Moreover,

teachers were asked about their teaching experience (total number of years), number of

106

years at their current campus and parents were questioned about their family structure,

sex and SES. For demographic data analysis, a linear regression analysis was conducted

which will be discussed in the following chapter.

If an association is found between two or more variables, the scores within a

certain range of a variable are linked with the other variable’s scores (Fraenkel & Wallen,

2009). Through statistical analysis, the association between variables can be measured by

direction and strength to determine if a relationship exists. There are three types of

directions an association between variables may possibly have: positive correlation,

negative correlation or no relationship within a range between -1 and +1.

A positive correlation is indicated when high values of one variable correspond

with high values of the comparing variable or when low values of one variable happen

with low values of another variable (Hurlburt, 2006). A negative correlation is described

when high values of one variable tend to occur with low values of the other variable and

when low values of one variable tend to occur with high values of another variable

(Hurlburt, 2006). No relationship exists when values of one variable do not correlate

with high or low values but instead are unpredictable indicating little if any association.

The correlational coefficient, Pearson’s r, is used when data sets measured at the

interval or ratio level (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). In this particular study, Pearson’s r is

the most appropriate fit because measurement of beliefs and expectations of teachers and

parents utilize a likert scaled survey (independent variables) and student achievement is

measured using interval scores on a reading assessment (dependent variable). As the

correlation coefficient moves toward either -1 or +1, the negative or positive associative

relationship gets stronger (Simon, 2011). Commonly, data for the associative variables

107

are reported through a scatter plot diagram with the values of the correlation coefficient.

This visual representation helps with the interpretation and understanding of the reported

scores. In the diagram, if r is positive (+1), the direction of the slope is uphill (from left to

right), and if r is negative (-1) the direction of the slope is downhill (from left to right)

(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).

If the values of the correlation coefficients on the diagram are neither uphill or

downhill and its direction undeterminable, r is assumed to be 0 indicating no association

between the variables. If the value is -1 or +1, this indicates perfect correlation between

the variables. Values in-between -1 or +1 carry a range of importance for determining

the weight of the correlation. According to Fraenkel & Wallen (2009), correlation

coefficients below .35 only show a slight degree of association; correlations between .4

and .6 may have theoretical or practical value; values of .65 are reasonably accurate for

making predictions; correlations over .85 indicate a close relationship with highly

correlated variables and are useful in predicting individual performance such as student

achievement.

Key Terms

Correlation coefficient: Indicates the degree to which two quantitative variables

are related by a decimal number between -1 and + 1 (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).

Correlational research. To examine the relationship between two or more

quantitative variables and they’re implications for cause and effect within a natural

occurring phenomena such as in a school-educational setting (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).

108

Exogenous variable. “A variable not being explained by a causal model, whose

variable is accounted for by other variables outside the models; also referred to as an

independent variable” (Mertler & Vannatta, 2010, p. 343).

Internal Consistency. The measure of reliability of an instrument where there is

cohesiveness or interrelatedness among the items (Isaac & Michael, 1995).

Mediator. An independent variable that has an indirect causal effect on a

dependent variable (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007).

Moderator. A variable that has an effect on the relationship strength between two

other variables (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007).

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (r). A statistical calculation used when there

are data sets measured in the interval or ratio level and measures the strength of the

associated relationship between the variables (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).

Reliability. The accuracy of a measurement tool to produce stable and consistent

results (Isaac & Michael, 1995).

Validity. Indicates the degree to which the test measures what is purported to

measure (Isaac & Michael, 1995).

Population and Sample

The convenience sample for this study was obtained from a population of students

residing in a 5A school district with a mix of rural and suburban neighborhoods in Texas.

The district consists of 14 schools: one high school, three middle schools, eight

elementary schools, and two alternative schools. These schools were selected based on

the schools’ Title I status and because the researcher had access to these schools as an

employee. The total enrollment, according to the 2013-2014 district PEIMS (Public

109

Education Information Management System) report was 11, 300 students in grades k-12.

From this population, a sample from three elementary schools of students in grades 3-5

was selected. All 14 schools in the district receive Title I funds, and 85% of eligible

students receive free or reduced lunch. More specifically, Schools 1, 2, and 3 have 85%,

86% and 88% of student receiving free or reduced lunch, respectively. This SES statistic

was used as an observable variable as cited in the literature, as an association between the

level of parental involvement and student achievement. The school wide samples are

representative of the population of the district and therefore share many of the same

characteristics of demographics.

Sampling Protocol/Procedures

The researcher met with the principal and teachers at each grade level (3rd

-5th

) to

discuss the background and expectations of the study. Both principals and teachers

received a detailed timeline of the description of each required item (surveys, student

data) and the due dates. Teachers received an identification code to access their consent

form and survey online. Students received a paper-based consent form and survey to take

home to their parents during the second semester of the academic school year. A coded

data system was implemented in order to protect the confidentiality and anonymity of

each participant. Each school was assigned a number, one, two or three respectively.

Each approved, consenting teacher was assigned a letter (A-Z) and consenting

students/parents a number (1-900). The school number, teachers and student/parent

followed these letters and numbers. For example (school) 1, (teacher) A, (student 1),

1A1. Students and parents received the same number with the only difference in the last

letter. Each letter corresponded to a teacher and their survey; each number corresponded

110

to the student reading achievement score and their parents’ survey. The last letter was

coded with an “S” for student score and “P” for parent survey. For example 1A1S and

1A1P. These data sets consisting of the student, their teacher and parent were combined

into a single data file based on an assigned teacher letter and student number.

Data Source

Data of the STAAR reading test for the 3rd

-5th

-grade student sample (n=575) were

provided by the school district and the Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR).

Teachers’ and parents’ beliefs and expectations of parental involvement data based on

Epstein’s six dimensions of parental involvement were collected through surveys. Data

collected from the three elementary schools within the district consisted of data from 579

students (STAAR Reading scores), 579 parents (Survey), and 48 teachers (Survey). This

sample size of teachers, parents and students allows for attrition during the data screening

with minimal influence. The next section describes the measured variables within this

correlational study that addresses all three-research questions.

Variables in the Study

The independent variables are the beliefs and expectations teachers and parents

possess based on the six types of Epstein’s Parental Involvement Types (Parenting,

Communicating, Volunteering, Learning at Home, Decision Making and Collaborating

with the Community). The dependent variables consist of the types of involvement

parents expect and student’s achievement scores on the reading state assessment. In the

following section, the variables relating to each participant are described:

For teachers: Independent variables: Beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement. Demographic variables: Race/ethnicity (Asian-American; Black or of

111

African American; White or Caucasian; Hispanic or Latino; Other), sex (male and

female), age (years), level of education (total years completed), teaching experience (total

of years of teaching), and number of years of experience teaching at their school.

Demographic variables were assessed to determine if these factors act as moderators

within the model in the relationship between a teachers’ beliefs and expectations of


For parents: Beliefs and expectations of parental involvement (independent

variable). Demographic variables: Race/ethnicity (White, non-Hispanic, Hispanic/Latino,

African Americans, and Other), Sex (male and female), level of education (total years of

schools completed), family structure (single parent, both parents, grandparents), and age

(years). These variables were assessed to determine if they act as moderators of what

parents’ beliefs and expectations of parental involvement.

For students: Race/ethnicity (White, non-Hispanic, Hispanic/Latino, African

Americans, and Other); sex (male and female); grade level SES (free or reduced lunch

program status for child) and student achievement scores on the Reading STAAR as

assigned by the school district in compliance with TEA.

Variable Measurement Characteristics

The following coding by data type was used for the variables included in the teacher

and parent-related surveys instruments:

Likert scale: (1= SA: Strongly Agree; 2= A: Agree; 3= D: Disagree; 4= SD:

Strongly Disagree) and (1=Not Important, 2=A Little Important, 3= Pretty Important, 4=

Very Important), representing an ordinal data set.

112

Demographic variables for teachers and parents were also included on each of the

survey instruments. Raw data collected from the surveys were coded for the following

data types:

Sex– (1= male, 2= female), nominal data set.

Age– (1= 20-30; 2= 31-40; 3= 41-50; 4= 51-60; 5= 61+), ordinal data set.

Ethnicity– (1 = Asian-American; 2 = Black or of African American; 3 = White or

Caucasian; 4 = Hispanic or Latino; 5 = Other), nominal data set.

Level of Education Achieved– (1= Some high school diploma/GED; 2= High

School Diploma/GED; 3= Some college; 4= Vocational School/Technical

College; 5= College degree; 6=Graduate degree or credits), nominal data set.

Demographic data for parents only:

How many parents/guardians live in the household of the student? – (1= Single

Parent home; 2= Two Parent Home), nominal data set.

Demographic data for teachers only:

Number of years of teaching experience– (1= 0-3; 2= 3-5; 3= 6-10; 4= 11-15; 5=

16-20; 6= 21+), ordinal data set.

Number of years teaching at their particular school– (1= 0-3; 2= 3-5; 3= 6-10; 4=

11-15; 5= 16-20; 6= 21+), ordinal data set.

Demographic data for students only:

Socioeconomic status determined by qualification of Free or Reduced Lunch –

(1= Yes, 2= No), nominal data set.

113

Instrumentation

Two main instruments were used to collect data on parents’ and teacher’s beliefs

and expectations of parental involvement and their student’s academic reading

achievement scores. Surveys were administered to teachers and parents in order to collect

data of their perception of parental involvement. The surveys are based on Epstein’s Six

Types of Parental Involvement (Parenting, Communicating, Volunteering, Learning at

Home, Decision Making and Collaborating with the Community).

Teacher Survey Description

The teacher survey was compromised of two questionnaires derived from the

School and Family Partnerships: Questionnaires for Teachers and Parents in Elementary

and Middle Grades Teachers (Epstein & Sheldon, 1993). Teachers (n=47) from three

Title I elementary school will answer a total of 44 questions through an survey online. As

aforementioned, teachers will use an assigned code received from the researcher to access

the online survey. The survey measures three central concepts including sub concepts: 1)

Teachers’ beliefs about parental involvement (sub concept: beliefs about their practices

and philosophical beliefs in parental involvement initiatives); 2) Teachers’ expectations

of what their role should be in parental involvement initiatives (sub concepts: expectation

for their role in supporting student learning at home; role in collaborating with the

(school and family) community; role in communication about student progress); and 3)

demographic information. Specifically, survey question numbers 1-18 measure the

beliefs of parental involvement (e.g. Parent involvement is important for a good school;

Most parents know how to help their children on schoolwork at home; Every family has

some strengths that could be tapped to increase student success in school). Teacher

114

responses to the beliefs of parental involvement consist of the subjects answering questions

based on Epstein’s six types of involvement on a Likert scale (4=Strongly Agree, 3=Agree,

2=Disagree, and 1=Strongly Disagree). The responses were then scored and tested for a

correlation with their student’s achievement scores through Pearson’s r and the strength and

direction of the correlation were assessed.

The second component of the teacher survey consists of questions 19-36 which

measures the expectations teachers have for their participation in parental involvement

initiatives (e.g. Have a conference with each of my students’ parents at least once a year;

Attend evening meetings, performances, and workshops at school; Inform parents when

their children do something well or improve. Teacher responses to these expectations for

their role in parental involvement consist of the subjects answering questions based on

Epstein’s six types of involvement on a Likert scale (1=Not Important, 2=A Little Important,

3= Pretty Important, 4= Very Important). The responses were scored and tested for a

correlation with their student’s achievement scores through Pearson’s r and the strength and

direction of the correlation were assessed.

In order to account for possible omissions in the survey and to provide an opportunity

for feedback from the subject, question number 37 is an open ended question, asking for their

written opinion of what is the most successful practice to involve parents that you have

used or that you have heard about? Data from this question were coded for themes and

patterns and were reported in the result section and were not part of the correlational

analysis.

The last section of the teacher survey asks question numbers (38-44) about their

socio-demographic information including their sex, age, level of education, ethnicity,

115

total years of teaching experience, years of teaching experience at their particular school.

Responses were measured through a multiple-choice format. The raw data were coded

into the data types as discussed in the next sections.

These data were modeled to test if these variables serve as moderators between

the variables of teachers’ beliefs and expectations of parental involvement and student

achievement on the Reading STAAR. A moderator is variable that affects the direction

and strength between the two variables were analyzed to measure the value of influence.

Demographic variables may contribute to this study as it may offer response patterns

from various subgroups of teachers and families, which provide a deeper understanding

of school involvement initiatives (1993).

Parent Survey

The parent questionnaire consists of three components of the surveys from the

Parent Survey of Family and Community Involvement in the Elementary and Middle

Grades (Epstein, & Salinas, 1993; Epstein & Sheldon, 2007). Surveys administered to

parents consist of a total of 53 questions via paper and pencil in both English and

Spanish. The purpose of the survey is to measure four variables and their associations

with teacher variables and students’ academic achievement in reading: 1) Parents’

perception about school quality; 2) parents’ perceptions of how well a teacher involves

them in parental involvement initiatives; 3) parents’ expectations (Predictor variable) for

their role in parental involvement initiatives (supporting student learning at home,

collaborating with the community (school and family), and communication about student

progress) and 4) measure of the parent socio-demographic information (i.e. sex, age,

family structure, ethnicity, formal schooling).

116

1) Parent beliefs about parental involvement, specifically their opinion about

school involvement initiatives at their school and how confident they were in engaging in

such initiatives; 2) parents’ expectations for themselves in their role in parental

involvement initiatives; 3) a measure of the parent socio-demographic information (i.e.

sex, age, family structure, ethnicity, formal schooling).

The first measure is evaluated based on questions (1-4) in the parent survey.

Questions (1-4) (e.g. This is a very good school; I feel welcome at the school; I get

along well with my child’s teacher) involve investigating teachers’ philosophical beliefs

about parental involvement and how a parent perceives the quality of their school to be.

These set of questions also examine how a teacher’s beliefs influence their practices,

which shape the school’s quality. Parent responses to these beliefs consist of analysis

based on a Likert scale (4=Strongly Agree, 3=Agree, 2= Disagree, 1= Strongly Disagree).

The second measure is evaluated based on questions (5-21) (e.g. Help me

understand my child’s stage of development; Explains how to check my child’s

homework; Provides information on community services that I may want to attend with

my child). This set of items measures parents’ perceptions (beliefs) about how well a

teacher involves them in parental involvement initiatives. Responses to these items and

analysis of these data will provide insight of a parent's perception of how well the teacher

involves them in major types (Epstein & Sheldon, 1993) of parental involvement and the

purpose is to find patterns of what parents think of the school’s programs. Parent

responses to these expectations consist of analysis based on a Likert scale (4=Well, 3=OK,

2= Poorly, 1= Never).

117

The third section is evaluated based on questions (22-46) and measures a parents’

expectation of their role in parental involvement initiatives. Specifically, expectations in

three different areas were measured: supporting student learning at home, collaborating

with the community (school and family), and communication about student progress.

These survey items are directly linked to Epstein’s theoretical framework of the three

spheres of influence: School, Family, and Community and offers an analysis between the

differences and similarities between parent and teacher expectations as well as their

association with student achievement in reading. This information will help to clarify

thee understanding of important phenomena through the identification of relationships.

Parent responses to these expectations consist of analysis based on a Likert scale

(4=Strongly Agree, 3=Agree, 2= Disagree, 1= Strongly Disagree).

In an attempt to measure the most valuable forms of parent involvement,

question (#47) is in open-ended question asking for the opinion of the parent in their

own words to write what is the most important way you they can be involved in their

child’s education. Similarly, to the open-ended question in the teacher survey, parents

will have an opportunity to write their response to the most effective type parental

involvement for them to be involved in a manner that may or may not be listed in the

survey. Data from this question were coded for themes and patterns and reported in the

results section of this present study.

The last section of the teacher survey asks question numbers (48-52) about their

socio-demographic information including their sex, age, ethnicity, family structure and

level of education. The purpose of asking these questions is to determine if these

variables, similarly to the teacher demographic variables serve as moderators between the

118

variables of parent’s beliefs and expectations of parental involvement and student

achievement on the Reading STAAR. Responses were measured through a multiple-

choice format. These raw data were coded into the data types as discussed in the next

sections.

This information was measured to determine if these variables serve as

moderators between the variables of parents’ beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement and student achievement on the Reading STAAR. Demographic variables

may contribute to this study as it may offer response patterns from various subgroups of

teachers and families, which provide a deeper understanding of school involvement

initiatives (1993).

Reliability and Validity of Instruments

A critical component when conducting or designing a study is ensuring that the

instruments utilized in the research are both valid and reliable then related data. If

variables from an instrument are not proven to be valid and reliable, then related data and

results could be jeopardized as its foundational measurements may not be reliable or

measure what is intended to be assessed. Therefore, ensuring that reliable psychometrics

for instruments are utilized is essential to a study.

The instruments used in this study were derived from the School and Family

Partnership Surveys of Teachers and Parents in the Elementary and Middle Grades

created at The Johns Hopkins University Center on Families, Communities, Schools &

Children’s Learning (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). The original surveys were published in

1993 and later updated in 2007 with new reliability scales. Survey items for the teacher

and parent survey were based on Epstein’s Six Types of Involvement for a SFCP

119

(Epstein, 1996). The survey scales were based on data from a research sample inclusive

of 243 teachers and 2,115 parents from fifteen economically diverse elementary and

middle schools in Baltimore, Maryland for the original 1993 survey (Epstein & Salinas,

1993).

According to Epstein and Salinas (1993), the reliability of a scale can be reported

in terms of the internal consistency of scores on items that suggest measuring the same

concept, in other words, the extent to which items on the survey instrument are measuring

the same thing. Both the teacher and parent surveys consist of Likert-type item questions

and therefore the Cronbach’s alpha () formula was utilized by researchers to address the

question of reliability. Cronbach’s alpha is commonly used to measure internal

consistency, or reliability, in a survey instrument. The alpha reliability reviews the

intercorrelation of a set of items of an instrument and accounts for variations in responses

to the items (Epstein & Salinas, 1993).

The researchers (Epstein & Salinas, 1993) took several measures to ensure the

survey instruments are valid and reliable. Using SPSS, researchers used The Reliability

Statistical procedure to analyze the means and variables of each survey item, inter-item

correlations, scale statistics, and an item-to-total statistics explaining the effect on the

internal reliability and alpha coefficient measurement of the scale when one or more

items was deleted (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). The researchers used the statistical analysis

to remove weak items and to ensure the most effective and highly reliable scale items

were produced.

The teacher and parent surveys utilized in this study included reliabilities of the

teacher and parent scales ranging from (=. 72) to (=. 89). The researcher notes that

120

alpha () is a reliability estimate due to possible measurement error or threats to validity

associated with survey measures (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). Possible scores can range

from 0 to 1. The higher or closer the score is to 1, the more reliable the scale, and the

greater the likelihood the variance is consistent. Scores close to 0, indicate

inconsistencies in variance, is and indicate the scale is less reliable. Accordingly to

Nunnaly (1978), 0.7 is an acceptable reliability coefficient to utilize in research studies

and analysis however, lower thresholds are sometimes used in the social sciences. Due to

the high alpha reliability of the scales implemented in this study, the surveys

administered to both teachers and parents are highly reliable and variance is consistent

among scale items.

Reliability of Teacher Survey

In the measurement of the teachers’ beliefs section of the parental involvement

survey used in this study, questions 1-18 consisted of a reliability coefficient of .72 based

on n=241 teachers for 11 of the 18 items. Seven of these items were added based on

previous analysis of survey data and were updated by the researchers (Epstein & Salinas,

1993). The researchers posit that these items were added to include a higher coverage of

the targeted content and practice measurements and therefore should increase the internal

validity of the scales (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). Questions 19-36 measure the

expectations teachers have for their role in parental involvement initiatives at their

school. The 18 item survey has a reliability coefficient of .89 based on a sample size of

n=235 teachers from both elementary and middle school grade levels. Based on the alpha

reliability scale, the survey with combined scales consists of a mid-to high- internal

consistency score to support that this instrument is reliable.

121

Reliability of Parent Survey

Questions (#1-4) measures a parent’s extent to which they believe about the

school’s overall quality and if they believe their child attends a good school. School

climate consists of four items with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .88 based on a sample size of

399 parents. Questions (#5-21), consisting of 16 questions assess the extent to which how

well a teacher involves them in parental involvement initiatives at the school. The

reliability of the items are broken down in five different measurements by the researcher

(Epstein, et al., 2002). Questions (#7, 14, 16, 17, and 19) have a Cronbach’s Alpha of

.841 based on five items and a sample size of 395 parents. These items focus on specific

invitations from the teacher in parental involvement initiatives. The second sets of

questions (#5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18, and 21) have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .873 based on a

sample size of 376 (Epstein & Sheldon, 2007). These questions focus on how well the

school communicates information about the child’s progress in school. The next two

items (#15 and 8) focuses on how well the school encourages parent-child interactions on

homework and has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .649 based on a sample size of 386 parents and

two items. The last two items (#13, 20) focus on how well the teacher connects the parent

with the community. The Cronbach’s Alpha is .737 and is based on a sample size of 407

parents.

The last section of the parent survey measures a parent’s expectation about their

role in parental involvement in questions (#22-46). The reliability report is broken down

in a few different categories. The first survey items (#22-31) measure the extent to which

a parent believes they should be involved in their child’s education. The Cronbach’s

Alpha is .882 and was based on a sample size of 396 parents. Questions (#33, 37, 40, and

122

45) have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .763 based on 404 parents. Questions (#32, 35, 36, 38,

39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46) have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .897 abased on a sample size of 392

parents. Reviewing all of the surveys, the combined alpha reliabilities are scored at .8 or

greater; therefore, these instruments are measured to be a reliable survey.

Content Validity of Surveys

Content validity addresses the alignment between test questions and the content

area they are intended to measure (American Educational Research Association,

American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education,

1999). Validity of a measurement can be measured in a variety of ways. For this study,

evidence is collected based on items implemented in this study have been used: 1) by

other expert researchers in the field many with over 20 years of research experience; 2)

published in peer reviewed journal articles and national studies; and 3) the surveys are

based on years of research from Joyce Epstein of Johns Hopkins University and her

framework of six types of parental involvement for a SFCP (Epstein, 2010). This

framework assists educators in developing school-family partnership programs, and it

addresses the multiple contexts that influence children’s development (Becker & Epstein,

1982; Epstein, 1986; Epstein & Dauber, 1991, 1993; Sheldon, 2006, 2007; Sheldon, &

Epstein, 2007; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992; Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler,

1995, 1997; Sheldon, 2002; Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, & Hoover-Dempsey,

2005). While these particular surveys instruments have not been implemented in the

current district where the study occurs, the surveys were conducted in similar

demographic areas in CLED communities.

123

Multiple studies were used to develop, supplement and refine the teacher and

parent surveys from the School and Family Partnership Surveys of Teachers and Parents

in the Elementary and Middle Grades. The studies related to the surveys used in this

study are related to the attitudes, practices and expectations of parental involvement from

a teacher and parents’ perspective based on the aforementioned survey.

For example, Dauber and Epstein (1993), used data from 2,317 inner-city parents

in Baltimore to examine how parents in economically disadvantaged communities report

the ways in which they are involved in their child’s education or wish to be and to

compare their level of involvement in children in elementary and middle school grades.

Findings were reported that a parent’s level of involvement is directly linked to a teacher

and school’s practices and initiatives to encourage parents to engage and support their

child’s learning. Also reported were school practices that promoted a parents

involvement showed to be more of an indicator for a parents’ involvement when

compared to a parents education, family structure, marital status and grade level.

In another study, Epstein and Dauber (1991) examined 171 teachers, eight

elementary and middle schools to investigate the relationship between school parental

involvement initiatives, teachers’ attitudes and practices to involve parents (Epstein &

Dauber, 1991). This study, provides supporting evidence of the content and construct

validity of both the surveys from the School and Family Partnership Surveys of Teachers

and Parents in the Elementary and Middle Grades and Epstein’s typology framework.

Teachers’ attitudes and practices of parental involvement were measured from

171 teachers in five elementary and three middle schools from economically distressed

areas. Teacher representatives received a three-year grant to receive trainings and support

124

on parent involvement initiatives. Teacher leaders from each school attended trainings

during the summertime and were provided information about the background of teacher’s

attitudes and practices. Teachers were paid to help write questionnaires and implement

the surveys to other teachers and parents through a paid grant. Based on the results of

these surveys, teachers created parental involvement activities in response to the results.

Teachers were provided with non-clinical summaries of their survey data to understand

the strengths and weaknesses of parental involvement at their school. The aim of the

three-year study and grant was to help design, conduct, evaluate and explain parental

involvement practices and activities in order to support student’s achievement (Epstein

and Dauber, 1991).

Researchers administered a teacher questionnaire which consisted of 100 items

investigating about teachers’ attitudes toward parental involvement; methods of

communication from home to school and school to home; use of school volunteers;

strength of implementation of the five types of involvement and their respective

practices; teachers’ expectations of parental involvement; open-ended responses about

involvement practices and other demographic information such as a teacher’s teaching

experience, number of students and subject taught (Epstein & Dauber, 1991).

Results of the survey (n=171 teachers) indicated each of the eight schools strengths and

areas of concern on the five types of parental involvement. Schools utilized this

information to develop future parental involvement initiatives and practices and

understand patterns and associations of teacher attitudes about parent involvement and

their actual practices (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). For example, one of the reported

findings was teachers with more positive attitudes toward parental involvement placed

125

more of a value of benefit of meeting and communicating with parents and a more

positive attitude was associated with involving “hard to reach” parents (r= .383).

Based on earlier studies and reviews, Epstein, suggests five major types of

involvement to develop a SFCP (Epstein, 1987a): (1) Basic obligations of families, (2)

Basic obligations of schools, (3). Involvement at school, (4) Involvement in learning

activities at home, and (5) Involvement in decision-making. Epstein’s original framework

of parental involvement was based on five instead and later redefined with six typologies.

In this study she introduces the importance type 6 (Collaborating with the community)

but does not implement this category in the study.

Epstein and Dauber (1991) posit that research on the framework of five types of

parental involvement for a SFCP, provides evidence of its validity and a study of a large

same of parenting incorporating the five types of involvement had moderate to high

internal reliabilities ranging from .58 to .81 (Dauber & Epstein, 1989). Dauber and

Epstein (1991, p. 294) also report that analyses from this study “indicate clear

connections between specific school programs and teachers’ practices of the same type.”

For example, a teacher's practices of communication with his parents were associated

significantly with the strength of the school communication program (r= .154) (Epstein &

Dauber, 1991).

Data collected from previous studies were used to study the design and the

effectiveness of each type. To further the examination of the framework, this study

provides reports from teachers about the five types of involvement in school involvement

initiatives (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). The results of the study added to the validation of

Epstein’s five types of involvement (currently six types) (Dauber & Epstein, 1991).

126

Dauber and Epstein (1991) suggest that schools that implement the five types of

involvement framework support parents and students at home by developing conditions

for learning, possess a bidirectional communication system between home and school,

have productive volunteers, include the perspective of parents and student on school

based decisions and both the home and school are seen as sharing a responsibility for

student learning.

Researchers argued that while this study was beneficial to contributing to the

understanding of teacher’s practices for each of these schools, it was missing the

perspective of the parent, a vital component to developing parental involvement

initiatives.

Dauber and Epstein (1993) expanded the aforementioned study to investigate n=2,

317 parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in eight inner-city elementary and

middle schools. The administered questionnaire consisted of 75 items measuring parents’

attitudes about their child’s school, types and frequencies of practices of parental

involvement at home, how to support their child in certain subject areas, their perceptions

the way school involves them and their recommendations to schools and their

involvement initiatives (Dauber & Epstein, 1993). The survey also consisted of

demographic and personal information such as a parents level of education, family size

and the times best times to they prefer to meet with their child’s teacher. Each of the

scale items and their type of measurement are reported in Table 13 as reported in the

study (Dauber & Epstein, 1993).

127

Table 13

Measures of Parental Involvement and Attitudes

Measures of Parent Involvement and

Attitudes

# Items Mean Reliability

Parent involvement at the school 5 items 2.36 .69

Parent involvement with homework 5 items 3.54 .63

Parent involvement in reading

activities at home

4 items 3.00 .58

Total parent involvement 18 items 3.07 .81

Parent attitudes toward the school 6 items 3.29 .75

School practices to communicate

with parents and involve them at

the school

5 items 2.35 .71

School Practices to involve parents

at home

4 items 2.04 .81

Total school program to involve

parents

9 items 2.21 .81

Some of the reported findings related to parents’ attitudes about parental

involvement were that overall they believed that their children a welcoming school with

caring teachers (Dauber & Epstein, 1993). Parents’ attitudes about the quality of their

school were highly correlated with the schools practices to involve parents (.346). When

schools create and implement ways to involve parents, the ratings from parents were

more positive. Also, parents from all eight schools wanted to learn more about how to

help their child in their schooling and believed that the school needed to develop and

strengthen their parental involvement initiatives.

128

The National Center for Education Statistics (Vaden-Kiernan, Chandler, Westat,

Inc., 1996) conducted a National Household Education Survey in 1996. The aim of the

study was to examine a parent’s perspective of their child’s school practices in regards to

parent involvement and rate their experience. The questions for this survey utilized

questions from the Epstein & Salinas (1993) questionnaires. The questions addressed the

various types of involvement based on Epstein’s framework for parental involvement.

Data was collected by phone interviews from nearly 16, 151 parents of children from

preschool to 12th

grade. While most parents rated each school practices as “Very well,”

the results of this study reported the strengths and areas to improve to increase parental

involvement initiatives based on parents’ perspectives.

In another study, conducted by Hoover Dempsey, Walker, Jones, & Reed (2002),

researchers investigated a teacher’s beliefs about parental involvement and adapted two

scales (Epstein, Salinas & Horsey, 1994) both of which were utilized for this study: 1)

Teachers’ belief about parental involvement (Alpha reliability .65-pre-test; .75-post-test)

and 2) Teachers’ beliefs about the Importance of Specific Parent Involvement Strategies

adapted from

In this scale, 14 of the 16 questions derived from Epstein’s work. Ten questions

were derived from Epstein et al., (1994) and four were based from Epstein’s (1986) work

of 12 types of learning activities at home that teachers can encourage. Alpha reliability

as reported in Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2002) was .65-pre-test; .75-post-test for these

survey scales, determining that the scales utilized in this study are highly reliable and

based on content that measures the specific content intended.

129

Teacher Beliefs about the Importance of Specific Parent Involvement Strategies:

reported in Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2002). Items 1-10 are based on Epstein, Salinas &

Horsey (1994); items 11-14 are based on Epstein (1986); item 15 is from Stipek (personal

communication, 1998); item 16 was taken from evaluation of a local early intervention

program (see Hoover-Dempsey, et al., 2002). Alpha reliability as reported in Hoover-

Dempsey et al. (2002) = .90 (pre-test), .94 (post-test).

The statistical analysis and findings from this study are examples of verifying the

content validity of the School and Family Partnership Surveys of Teachers and Parents

in the Elementary and Middle Grades as used in these two aforementioned studies and

others cited. Construct validity was determined by internal consistency and content

validity. Because these surveys were not developed with national studies, the researcher

will also conduct reliability and validity analyses to compare with Epstein’s and

associates findings. The survey has been implemented in multiple studies by a variety of

experts and has been developed over a 20-year time frame to continue to refine the

original survey work.

State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)

The final piece of data that was collected in this study is the student achievement

component. In the spring of 2014, 3rd

, 4th

and 5th

grade students took the STAAR Reading

Assessment and the results were reported at the end of the academic year. Reading

achievement data were collected from 579 students through the TAPR reported by the

Texas Education Agency.

Recently, in 2012 a new state accountability test was adopted titled the State of

Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) and replaced the Texas

130

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). The primary goal for STAAR is to

increase the level of rigor of the state assessment in order to prepare students with 21st

skills (TEA, 2013). For elementary level grades (k-5), the STAAR assessment is

administered for students in grades 3-5. In all three-grade levels, reading and

mathematics is tested and writing is testing at the 4th

grade level and science at the 5th

.

The aim of this study is to use data from the Reading STAAR scores from students in

grades 3-5 (n=579) in three elementary schools. There are three performance categories

used to score the STAAR assessments: Level III- Advance Academic Performance, Level

II-Satisfactory Academic Performance, and Level I-Unsatisfactory Academic

Performance. Level III is the highest performance achievable and is described by TEA

(2012c), as the student being ready for the next grade level or course with little to no

academic intervention to be successful, is able to demonstrate the assessed knowledge

and skills in a variety of contexts (TEA, 2012c). Level II is considered the passing

standard, students in this category are described as being prepared for the next grade level

but may need some level of academic intervention to be successful in the next grade level

and are able to apply the tested knowledge and skills in familiar contexts (TEA, 2012c).

Level I is defined as students not meeting the passing expectation thus indicating that

they may not be adequately prepared for the next grade level. Students who earn a Level I

do not demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the assessed knowledge and skills and

are predicted by TEA (2012c) to be unlikely to succeed in the next grade level without a

substantial and consistent academic intervention.

The process for creating each of the three STAAR standards (Level III, II, I) uses

a nine-step process. TEA (2012c) reports that the following steps were utilized for the

131

STAAR performance standards: 1) Conduct validity and linking studies; 2) Develop

performance labels and policy definitions; 3) Develop grade/course specific performance

level descriptors; 4) Policy committee; 5) Standard-setting committee; 6) Reasonableness

review; 7) Approval of performance standards; 8) Implementation of performance

standards; and 9) Review of performance standards. This process is designed to align

assessments with the performance standards and provide indicators of the level of

achievement and success of the degree of preparedness for the next grade level or course

(TEA, 2013). Performance standards are set with this aim; TEA (2013) posits that the

empirical evidence validates the implementation of the standards used to assess level

achievement. In addition, an empirical evidence-based standard-setting approach

incorporates empirical evidence with the STAAR performance setting process (Beimers,

Way, McClary, & Miles, 2012; O’Malley, Keng, & Miles, 2011). This combination of

methods involved the incorporation of expertise of content experts and measurement

specialist, and fulfills the requirement of establishing performance standards as required

by state statue (TEA, 2013).

Data Screening

Three main sets of data were collected. The first set consisted of teachers’ and

parents’ beliefs of parental involvement. The second was between teachers’ and parents’

expectations of parental involvement. Third, were the first two data sets and its

correlation to student reading achievement. Demographic data supplemented all three

data sets for each subject and were analyzed to determine if they serve as moderators in

each correlational analysis. All data collected were individualized by an assigned teacher

letter (A-Z) and student number (n=1-1200) and school number (1-3). After the data sets

132

were linked and combined, independent variables between parents’ and teachers’ beliefs

and expectations of parental involvement based on Epstein’s framework was measured

and how these two variables relate to academic achievement are reported in the following

chapter.

After the data were collected, the initial step within data analysis was to screen

the data. Prior to conducting the analysis, four main screenings were conducted to (1)

find accuracy of the data acquired; (2) identify missing data and an effort to find

solutions to having incomplete data; (3) examine the effects of extreme values or outliers;

and (4) evaluate the adequacy of fit between the data and the assumptions of a specific

method (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). There may be a small number of cases of missing

data, which were addressed by deleting the cases, or variables that create the problem or

dropping it from the data file (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). If the missing data were

deemed crucial for the analysis and results, a second alternative was implemented. To

screen for mulitcollinearity (i.e. IVs are highly correlated .9 or greater) and singularity

conditions (i.e. IV variables are perfectly correlated) to ensure that correlational measures

between two variables are not too highly correlated (greater than r=. 85), output data were

analyzed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Missing data were replaced by the mean, as the best estimate for the value for the

variable (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). This posed a small risk however, the variance was

reduced slightly due to the actual value that may not have been equal to the mean

(Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). In circumstances where there are outliers or extreme values

at one or both of the sample distribution, the Mahalanobis distance was calculated to

identify the mulitcollinearity among variables and correlations between variables of

133

which different patterns can be identified and examined (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005).

Data preparation and screening were implemented in this study to ensure that data are

measured with accuracy and interpreted to determine statistically significant relationships

among variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005).

Data Analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (V. 18) (Chicago, Illinois,

2009) was used to perform a correlational analysis and descriptive statistic survey data,

and achievement scores and a descriptive analysis of the socio-demographic information.

Several steps were taken to perform a correlational analyses (Simon, 2011), (1) All data

were recorded in a table format; (2) A scatter diagram was created to check for any

trends; (3) The correlation coefficient r, or Pearson’s r correlation was calculated, to

acquire extent and significance of the associations between the variables; (4)

Determination if r is statistically significant was made. If r is statistically significant, then

a regression analysis, a statistical process can be used to determine the relationship

between the variables. The results from this data analysis were used to determine if a

statistically significant correlation occurred between variables and to identify the degree

of association based on Pearson’s r.

Summary

A correlational research design was used to analyze and identify the strength of

associations between variables. Specifically, the purpose of this quantitative study was to

examine the variables of beliefs and expectations teachers and parents have regarding

how parents should be involved in their child’s education, as well as the schools’

expectation of their own role in involving families and the community and how this

134

correlates with a student’s reading achievement. The analysis of this relationship is

important because as schools increase their understanding of the varying beliefs and

expectations they begin to develop the necessary skills and knowledge to form a SFCP.

Schools that understand the teachers’ and parents’ beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement and understand the potential value associated between these three variables

(Expectations, beliefs and achievement) are more likely able to understand and

implement best practices to involve families and support students.

135

IV. CONCLUSIONS/DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Results

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the data analysis and findings for this

study and to answer the eight main research questions. While the focus of data was

collected through quantitative measures, qualitative data are also presented based on

teacher and parent feedback. As described in chapter three, this study was conducted

utilizing a Likert-scale survey as the methodological strategy and analyzed through

correlational analysis to determine if a relationship between teacher and parent beliefs

and expectations for parental involvement are correlated with student achievement.

The total number of participants included in the results of both the quantitative

and qualitative data of students, parents and teachers combined was N=1,206. For each

sample type (i.e. student, parent, teacher), n= 579 students and n =579 parents and n=48

teachers provided consent to participate in the study. Of the 1,028 parent surveys

administered, 579 (56.32%) (Table 14) were returned and their child’s score was reported

from the three elementary school samples. Nearly all of the teacher surveys were

returned. Of the 49 surveys administered, 48 (97.6%) were completed, see table 15.

This collection of data was drawn from a purposeful sample in a predominately

rural and suburban district in the state of Texas. The 5A rated district, named District 123

ISD, consisted of 14 total schools: one high school, three middle schools, eight

elementary schools, and two alternative schools. Within the district, three schools: School

1 Elementary, School 2 Elementary and School 3 Elementary were used for this

investigation. Tables 16 –26 describe both the teacher and parent demographics of

participants in this study. Overall 81% of teachers were female, 32% were Hispanic,

136

70% had a college degree and 26% had a masters degree, the majority of teachers or 39%

had 0-3 years of experience, 56% were at the campus between 0-3 years and their age

ranged from 23 to 63. The majority of this sample consisted on non-Hispanic female

teachers relatively new to teaching at to the campus. For parents, similarly to teacher the

majority (86%) were females; additionally, 64% were Hispanic, 67% had two

parents/adults in the home; and the majority of parents 35% had less than a high school

degree and 53% of parents were between the ages of 31-40.

Table 14

Parent Surveys

Surveys by School Administered Returned % Returned

School 1 309 153 49.51%

School 2 354 196 55.37%

School 3 365 230 63.01%

Total Surveys 1,028 579 56.32%

Table 15

Teacher Surveys

Teacher Surveys Administered Returned % Returned

School 1 15 14 93%

School 2 17 17 100%

School 3 17 17 100%

Total Surveys 49 48 97.6%

137

Table 16

Teacher Sex

Frequency Percent

Valid

F 474 81.3

M 84 14.4

Total 558 95.7

Missing System 25 4.3

Total 583 100.0

Table 17

Teacher’s Ethnicity, Hispanic-Yes or No

Frequency Percent

Valid Y 190 32.6

N 368 63.1

Total 558 95.7


Total 583 100.0

Table 18

Teacher’s Level of Education

Frequency Percent

Valid College 408 70.0

Graduate 150 25.7

Total 558 95.7


Total 583 100.0

138

Table 19

Teaching Experience

Frequency Percent

Valid 0-3 yrs 227 38.9

3-5 yrs 162 27.8

6-10 yrs 68 11.7

11-15 yrs 64 11.0

16-20 yrs 37 6.3

Total 558 95.7


Total 583 100.0

Table 20

Teacher School Tenure

Frequency Percent

0-3 yrs 324 55.6

3-3 yrs 178 30.5

6-10 yrs 56 9.6

Total 558 95.7


Total 583 100.0

139

Table 21

Parent’s Sex

Frequency Percent

Valid 17 2.9

Female 504 86.4

Male 62 10.6

Total 583 100.0

Table 22

Parent’s Ethnicity, Hispanic-Yes or No

Frequency Percent

Valid 160 27.4

No 51 8.7

Yes 372 63.8

Total 583 100.0

140

Table 23

Number of Parents in the Household

Frequency Percent

Valid 31 5.3

Single 144 24.7

1 (Grandparent) 1 .2

Two parent 393 67.4

2 grandparents, 1 parent 1 .2

3 2 .3

4 1 .2

Other 1 .2

Other: 7 1 .2

Other: Grandparent 1 .2

Other: Mother and

grandparent 1 .2

Other: Mother and

grandparents 1 .2

Other: parent and

grandparent 1 .2

Other: Single parent with

grandparents 1 .2

Other: 3 1 .2

Other: Grandparent 1 .2

Other: mom and uncle 1 .2

Total 583 100.0

141

Table 24

Parent’s Race

Frequency Percent

Valid 36 6.2

Asian-American 2 .3

Black or African American 23 3.9

Hispanic or Latino 475 81.5

Other: Biracial 1 .2

Other: Black or African

American and Hispanic or

Latino

1 .2

Other: Cuban 2 .3

Other: American Indian 1 .2

Other: Black and Hispanic 1 .2

White or Caucasian 41 7.0

Total 583 100.0

142

Table 25

Parent’s Level of Education

Frequency Percent

Valid 0 - Missing 42 7.2

0.5 - None 2 .3

1 - Elementary school 6 1.0

2 - Middle school 5 .9

3 - Some high school 205 35.2

4- High school

diploma/GED 147 25.2

5 - Some college 83 14.2

6 - Vocational/Technical

school 57 9.8

7 - College degree 29 5.0

8 - Graduate degree or

credits 7 1.2

Total 583 100.0

Table 26

Parent’s Age

Frequency Percent

Valid 25 4.3

20-30 137 23.5

31-40 311 53.3

41-50 96 16.5

51-60 10 1.7

61+ 4 .7

Total 583 100.0

143

Again, the research questions used to investigate beliefs and expectations of

parental involvement and achievement and guide this study are the following:



scores?









scores?

Research Question 5: Is there a statistically significant difference between

teachers’ and parents’ beliefs of parental involvement?

Research Question 6: Is there a statistically significant difference between

teachers’ and parents’ expectations of parental involvement?


achievement moderated by parent demographics?

Research Question 8: Is the relationship between parent expectations and

academic achievement moderated by parent demographics?

144

The following section will provide a descriptive analysis and response to the

research questions for this investigation. In addition a discussion of the findings and the

reliability statistics of the instrument will be presented.

Quantitative Analysis

Nonparametric correlations were selected to analyze the data. This was an

appropriate analysis because data were collected through ordinal and nominal scales and

the distribution of results was significantly skewed. Frequency Table 16 describes the

four measurements based on teacher and parent data on the administered surveys: teacher

beliefs, teacher expectations, parent beliefs and parent expectations and details the results

mean, median, standard deviation, skewness, standard error skewness, minimum and

maximum. A commonly accepted practice is to divide the skewness by the standard error

of skewness. If this number is greater than two, this means the data were skewed. Three

of the four variables were skewed except the Teacher Belief items. Figures 5 - 8 depict

these variables in a visual histogram representation and also indicates that parents and

teachers had very strong expectations and beliefs when it came to parental involvement.

In addition, Spearman’s r was used instead of Pearson’s r because the data were non

parametric and the data were skewed (Figure 7, 8). The next section provides an

overview of the data that will be discussed in response with each research questions.

145

Teacher Beliefs

Figure 5. Teacher Beliefs

Teacher Expectations

Figure 6. Teacher Expectations

146

Parent Beliefs

Figure 7. Parent Beliefs

Parent Expectations

Figure 8. Parent Expectations

147

Table 27

Measures of Central Tendency, Dispersion and Symmetry

Teacher

Beliefs

N=558

Teacher

Expectations

N=546

Parent

Beliefs

N=581

Parent

Expectations

N=581

Mean 2.92 1.78 1.60 1.40

Median 2.89 1.72 1.46 1.28

Std Deviation 0.26 0.471 0.56 0.403

Skewness 0.03 0.945 0.96 1.044

Std. Error of Skewness 0.10 0.105 0.101 0.101

Minimum 2.38 1.0 1.0 1.0

Maximum 3.56 3.12 3.9 3.69

Research Questions and Description of Results:



scores? Survey questions were used to answer this research question. Eighteen questions

listed in figure 5 were selected to measure a teacher’s beliefs about parental involvement

and their role in the facilitation process. The questions focus on the teacher’s attitude of

parental involvement and its importance and also rate the school’s efforts to implement in

parental involvement initiatives.

148

Teacher Beliefs Survey Items

1. Parent involvement is important for a good school.

2. Most parents know how to help their children on schoolwork at home.

3. This school has an active and effective parent organization (e.g PTA or

PTO).

4. Every family has some strengths that could be tapped to increase student

success in school.

5. All parents could learn ways to assist their children on schoolwork at home,

if shown how.

6. Parent involvement can help teachers be more effective with more students.

7. Teachers should receive recognition for time spent on parent involvement

activities.

8. Parents of children at this school want to be involved more than they are

now at most grade levels.

9. Teachers do not have the time to involve parents in very useful ways.

10. Teachers need in-service education to implement effective parent

involvement practices.

11. Parent involvement is important for student success in school.

12. This school views parents as important partners.

13. The community values education for all students.

14. This school is known for trying new and unusual approaches to improve

the school.

15. Mostly, when I contact parents, it’s about problems or trouble.

16. In this school, teachers play a large part in most decisions.

17. The community supports this school.

18. Compared to other schools, this school has one of the best school climates

for teachers, students, and parents.

Figure 9. Teacher Beliefs Survey Items (questions 1-18).

A correlational analysis was conducted between the teachers’ beliefs of parental

involvement based on questions 1-18 and student’s level of achievement. The total

number of students tested in this analysis was n=558 and for teachers was n= 48. The

149

correlational analysis run through SPSS reported that the correlation coefficient,

Spearman’s r= .022 (Table 28). The results indicate that there is no relationship between

a teacher’s beliefs about parental involvement and a student’s achievement. The

significance level, p= .606 is greater that .05; therefore the null hypothesis cannot be

rejected and the researcher found no statistically significant correlation between the two

variables.

Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for the sets of questions to measure the

reliability of the items, resulting in a Cronbach’s Alpha score of .750 and n=18 items.

This score is consistent with reliability scores reported by Epstein & Salinas (1993) of

Cronbach’s Alpha of .72 and n=241 teachers.

Table 28

Spearman’s rho Correlation Coefficients between Academic Achievement and Measured

Construct.

Teacher Beliefs

N=558

Teacher

Expectations

N=546

Parent Beliefs

N=581

Parent

Expectations

N=581

Correlation

Coefficient .022 -.009 -.002 -.047

Sig. (2-tailed) .606 .836 .955 .261



Reading STAAR scores? Eighteen questions were asked of teachers about their

expectations of parental involvement varying from communication with parents to

specific initiatives to engage parents and support students’ achievement (see figure 6).

150

Teacher Expectations Survey Items

19. Have a conference with each of my students’ parents at least once a year.

20. Attend evening meetings, performances, and workshops at school.

21. Contact parents about their children’s problems or failures.

22. Inform parents when their children do something well or improve.

23. Involve some parents as volunteers in my classroom.

24. Inform parents of the skills their children must pass in each subject I

teach.

25. Inform parents how report card grades are earned in my class.

26. Provide specific activities for children and parents to do to improve

students’ grades.

27. Provide ideas for discussing TV shows.

28. Assign homework that requires children to interact with parents.

29. Suggest ways to practice spelling or other skills at home before a test.

30. Ask parents to listen to their children read.

31. Ask parents to listen to a story or paragraph that their children write.

32. Work with other teachers to develop parent involvement activities and

materials.

33. Work with the community members to arrange learning opportunities in

my class.

34. Work with area businesses for volunteers to improve programs for my

students.

35. Request information from parents on their children’s talents, interests, or

needs.

36. Serve on a PTA/PTO or other school parental involvement committee.

Figure 10. Teacher Expectations Survey Items (questions 19-36).

A correlational analysis was conducted and the results reported a non-significant

correlation coefficient of r= -.009 (p = 836) between a teacher’s expectations and

student’s reading achievement see Table 29. The total number of participants of this

analysis was n=546 students and parents and n= 48 teachers. Similar to the variable

teacher’s beliefs and academic achievement, the data reports there is no correlation

151

between a teacher’s expectations of parental involvement and a student’s academic

achievement.

Cronbach’s Alpha for the survey items, n=18, was also calculated to test the

reliability of the instrument of teacher’s beliefs. According to reliability statistics,

Cronbach’s Alpha was reported as .918, which is interpreted as a highly reliable set of

questions for this section of the instrument. This is in line with the reliability scores

reported by Epstein & Salinas (1993) of a Cronbach’s Alpha reliability score of .918, of

n=235 teachers.



Reading STAAR scores? To measure the correlation between a parents’ expectations

about their role in parental involvement and its relationship to student achievement, 24

items were asked through a Likert scale survey of n=581 parents (see Figure 12). This

analysis of these two variables resulted in a moderate negative relationship, r=-.047

indicating a lack of correlation. The significance level, p= .261 is greater than .05 and

implies that the null hypothesis is rejected and there is not a statistically significant

correlation. Epstein & Salinas, 1993 had a combined Cronbach’s Alpha of .822, which

represents a high reliability.

152

Parent Expectations Survey items

It’s a parent’s responsibility to…

22. Make sure that their child learns at school.

23. Teach their child to value schoolwork.

24. Show their child how to use things like a dictionary or encyclopedia.

25. Contact the teacher as soon as academic problems arise.

26. Test their child on subject taught in school.

27. Keep track of their child’s progress is school.

28. Contact the teacher if they think their child is struggling in school.

29. Show an interest in their child’s schoolwork.

30. Help their child understand homework.

31. Know if their child is having trouble in school.

32. Read with their child.

33. Volunteer in the classroom or at school.

34. Work with their child on science homework.

35. Review and discuss the schoolwork their child brings home.

36. Help their child with math.

37. Visit their child's school.

38. Go over spelling or vocabulary with their child.

39. Ask their child about what he/she is learning in science.

40. Talk to their child's teacher.

41. Help their child with reading/language arts homework.

42. Help their child understand what he/she is learning in reading/language

arts class.

43. Help their child prepare for math tests.

44. Ask their child how well he/she is doing in school

45. Go to a school event (e.g. sports, music, drama or meeting)

46. Check to see if your child finished his/her homework.

Figure 11. Parent Expectations Survey Items (questions 22-46).

153

The Cronbach’s Alpha of this set of analysis was .934, n=24 and was in line

with Epstein and Salinas (1993) finding of .822 for the Cronbach’s Alpha. In this case

the set of questions were measured as highly reliable. However due to the high

frequencies of the selection of “Strongly agrees” this may have resulted in skewed data.

The correlational analysis does not align with the data supporting a correlation, which

typically is reported when there are high levels of reliability.



scores? To measure the correlation between a parent’s beliefs and their student’s

academic achievement, 21 questions were asked through a Likert scale similar to the

teacher survey. The set of questions measured a parent’s beliefs specifically about their

school’s quality as well as their experience with their child’s teacher.

154

Parent Beliefs Survey Items

Describe the school’s quality

1. This is a very good school.

2. I feel welcome at the school.

3. I get along well with my child’s teacher(s).

4. The teachers at this school care about my child.

The teachers at this school . . .

5. Help me understand my child’s stage of development.

6. Tells me how my child is doing in school.

7. Asks me to volunteer at the school.

8. Explains how to check my child’s homework.

9. Sends home news about things happening at school.

10. Tells me what skills my child needs to learn in:

math.

11. Tells me what skills my child needs to learn in: reading/language arts.

12. Tells me what skills my child needs to learn in: science.

13. Provides information on community services that I may want to use

with my family.

14. Invites me to PTA/PTO meetings.

15. Assigns homework that requires my child to talk with me about things

learned in class.

16. Invites me to a program at the school.

17. Asks me to help with fundraising.

18. Has a parent-teacher conference with me.

19. Includes parents on school committees, such as curriculum, budget, or

improvement committees.

20. Provides information on community services that I may want to attend

with my child.

21. Updates me on my child’s progress.

Figure 12. Parent Beliefs Survey Items (questions 1-21).

155

A total number of parent participants was n=581. The results of the correlational

data analysis was reported r=-.002 with the significance level p=. 955. The Cronbach’s

Alpha was also measured to test the reliability of the aforementioned set of items and had

a value of .947. While the reliability is high, the correlational value does not represent a

correlational significance between what parent’s believe about parental involvement and

their child’s student academic achievement. One possible explanation for the discrepancy

for this is that reported in Frequency Table 13, the majority of parents selected “highly

agreed” as their main selection. This could possibly indicate that parents were answering

what they thought was the right response or did not understand the survey.

Research Question 5: Is there a relationship between teachers’ and parents’ beliefs

of parental involvement? Table 29 presents the analysis conducted to measure the

relationship between teacher and parents beliefs. The data values are r=. 020, p=. 644,

n= 556 and thus there is no significant relationship between the two variables.

Research Question 6: Is there a relationship between teachers’ and parents’

expectations of parental involvement? Similarly to the results of research question 5,

analysis of the relationship between teachers and parents expectations revealed that r=.

639, p= 1.0, n= 544. The p value was lower than .05 and again showed that there was no

significant relationship between the two variables.


achievement moderated by parent demographics? The relationship between parent

beliefs and academic achievement was not moderated by a parent’s level of education.

Parents with lower levels of formal education: =. 077, df =256, p = .217 and with higher

156

levels of education: = -.016, df= 321, p = .775 thus interpreted as there being no

relationship.

Research Question 8: Is the relationship between Parent Expectations and

Academic Achievement moderated by parent demographics? For parents with less than a

HS diploma or GED, there was not a moderation influence between Parental

Expectations and Student Achievement ( = .005, df = 256, p = .953). However, when

parents have a HS diploma or higher, the relationship is statistically significant ( = .116,

df = 321, p = .037). The following sections will describe the parents’ demographics in

relation between parents’ beliefs and expectations and academic achievement more in-

depth.

Table 29

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients

Teacher

Beliefs

Teacher

Expectations

Parent

Beliefs

Parent

Expectations

Student

Level No.

Teacher

Beliefs --

Teacher

Expectations

r = -.377

p = .000 --

Parent

Beliefs

r = .020

p = .644

r = -.020

p = .639 --

Parent

Expectations

r = .003

p = 948

r = -.015

p = .721

r = .393

p = .000 --

Student

Level No.

r = .024

p = .568

r = .013

p = .767

r = .001

p = .973

r = -.078

p = .062 --

Note. Pearson Correlation Coefficients and levels of significance are shown in a single

cell for each comparison. In all instances n was between 544 – 583.

157

Demographic Variables

Further analysis was conducted to find other potential correlations. Demographic

variables are very important in understanding the influence they may have on variables

based on the level of significance. Linear regression was conducted where student

achievement level was the dependent variable and included the demographic data. As

expected, and similar to the correlational analysis of the teacher and parent variables and

student achievement, the majority of these variables were not significant predictors.

Teacher and parent demographic variables were analyzed to test if a correlation existed

between these variables and student achievement, parent beliefs and expectations. Age

and level of education variables were collected from parents via the Likert scale survey.

Income and ethnicity were not analyzed due to the majority of participants qualifying in

the economically disadvantaged and Hispanic categories. Analysis of the teacher

demographics revealed no relation to student achievement however, parent level of

education did have a level of influence.

Parents’ Expectations and Parents’ Level of Education

For parents’ expectations, parents have to achieve a level of education of a high

school diploma or greater for there to be a relationship. For parents with less than a HS

diploma or GED, there was not a significant relationship between Parental Expectations

and Student Achievement ( = .005, df = 256, p = .953). However, when parents have a

HS diploma or higher, the relationship is statistically significant ( = .116, df = 321, p =

.037).

158

Parents’ Beliefs and Parents’ Level of Education

Parents Beliefs regardless of level of education was not related to student

achievement: With lower levels of formal education: =. 077, df =256, p = .217 and with

higher levels of education: = -.016, df= 321, p = .775, resulting in no relationship.

Parents’ Beliefs and Parents' Age

The majority of parents were younger than 40 years old. For parents younger

than 30 there was not a relationship between their beliefs and student achievement (= -

.047, df= 135, p= .583). The same was found for parents older than 30 (= .015, df= 419,

p= .758). Again, the significance value was more than .05 indicating a lack of

significance.

Parents’ Expectations and Parents’ Age

Similarly, for parents younger than 30, their expectations were not related to

student achievement (b=. 030, df=135, p=. 729). However, for parents older than 30

years, the relationship between parent expectations and student achievement approached

significance (b=. 095, df=419, p=. 053).

Again, examination of the teacher data did not reveal any statistical significant

relationships between teacher beliefs and expectations and student achievement for any

subgroup. The teacher demographic variables did not affect these relationships.

Qualitative Data

Two qualitative, open-ended questions were asked, one on the teacher and parent

survey. Question 37 on the teacher survey asked: “In your opinion, what is the most

successful practice to involve parents that you have used or that you have heard about?”

Question 47 on the parent survey asked: “In your opinion, what is the most important

159

way you can be involved in your child’s education?” The aim of asking these questions

was to collect data on possible items that were not asked or measured on the surveys.

Qualitative data was analyzed using a thematic deductive method (Fereday & Muir-

Cochrane, 2006). First the data was summarized and initial themes were generated.

Second, themes were established by grouping main concepts. Third, responses were

categorized based on these themes.

Teacher Survey

A total of 49 parents were surveyed and 42 responded to the open ended

qualitative question. Based on the data collected, categories were organized based on

common themes and patterns of the data. Seven categories were created which were:

Communication, After School Events and Trainings, Support in the Classroom,

Relationships and Communication, Communication and Make Parents Feel Welcomed

and After School Events and Trainings. See Figure 9 for the number of responses for

each category and example responses.

Teacher Responses

Category Number

of Items

Examples

Communication 15

“Parent volunteers who would act as floaters in their kids

class. It’s good to have another adult around, and

increases their understanding of what actually happens in

a classroom.”

“I think class moms are great. It seems like they can get

other parents involved easily, and take a lot of the calling

off if the teachers for family events. I think if every class

had a classroom mom, then there would be more family

activities in the classroom.”

Figure 13 Teacher Responses

160

Category Number

of Items

Examples

After School

Events and

Trainings

12 “I have not had much success involving parents in the

classroom, but to be honest I have not tried very hard. I

will say that when I have assigned a class project such as

building a 3D model of the universe, I notice more parent

involvement.”

“Have parents listen to their child read orally and ask them

questions about what they just read.”

Support in the

Classroom

7 “Parent volunteers in schools helping teachers and

mentoring students.”

“In the classroom working with student and teachers. Just

having a parent read to a group of students or listen to a

student read is useful or playing learning games with the

students. Helping out by preparing classroom materials is

great to, but it would be nice to see parents actually

interacting with the students.”

Relationships

and

Communication

5 “Contacting parents for the positives a student does has

gone a long way to help establish trust between parents

and me.”

“Giving positive feedback about students at the beginning

of the year to get parents on your side and understand that

you care about their child.”

Communication

and After School

Events

2 “I think involving parents is very important in order for a

student to be successful in school. One thing I attempt to

do is a contact parent on things their student did

outstanding on. I also think after school functions such as

science night and math night are things that can involve

student and parent involvement.”

Figure 13 cont.

161

Category Number

of Items

Examples

“I provide my parents with reading discussion questions

and plenty of ideas to fit in reading with their child or

having their child read aloud that fit into their already

busy schedules. We also started sending more interactive

homework that students can do with their parents. A lot

of the bilingual parents feel defeated and like they cannot

help their child because they do not know English. I like

giving them ideas of how they can that are not affected by

the language barrier. This really gives them confidence. I

really like how my school has parent volunteers and we

get to interact with them.”

Make Parents

Feel Welcomed

2 “Make them feel that they are able to speak to their

teachers without putting the blame on them. Have a person

around who is approachable to the parents. Most parents

don't want to be involved due to their lack of education

and to their or sometimes social status. They need to be

understood and approached in a loving matter.”

“Making the parents feel welcomed from the very

beginning and valuing their children have been successful

in getting parents involved.”

Figure 13. cont.

162

Parent Survey

The majority of parents that returned the survey responded to the qualitative

question. A total of 435 out of the 579 returned surveys responded to the open-ended

question. The same procedure for analyzing the teacher data was conducted for the parent

data. The responses were documented and then organized into themes and patterns. A

total of 19 categories were created: Homework Help, Communication, Be Involved with

Academics, Values, Didn’t Answer, Encouragement, School Related Activities, Support,

Overall Involvement, Time, To Read, Relationship with the Teacher, Attendance, To

Study, Prepare for Future, Be Present, Parent Tries to be Involved in School,

Extracurricular, and Be Involved with the School. Over a 100 responded to each of these

two categories as being the best way to be involved with their child’s education. Figure

10 provides example responses in each category:

Parent Responses

Category Number

of Items

Examples

Homework Help

118 “Help my daughter with her homework, make sure she

reads and practices her math on a daily basis.”

“Help him with his homework and support and tell him

to study and explain that's it's important for his future.”

Communication

109 “Going to parent teacher conferences and helping my

child easier ways to understand their homework.”

“By communicating with the teachers and understanding

exactly how they are doing in all studies. Also

encouraging them in all that they do, that nothing is

impossible.”

Be Involved with

Academics

33 “Being informed about their child's academic agenda

and progress at school. I believe this will give parents

the opportunity to open the door to discuss and be

involved more with their child's education.”

Figure 14. Parent Responses

163

Category Number

of Items

Examples

“Making sure that my child understands the work that is

given at school and praise them in the efforts at learning

their lessons even if they are not sure if they are doing

well or not.”

Values

32 “I give him my full trust and care on whatever he

decides to study as long as he does what he tells me and

doesn’t lie to me.”

“Teach them good principles and advise him to always

be a good kid, a good peer, and to always learn the good

versus the bad.”

Didn’t Answer

Question

22 “There's nothing that the school or teacher's need to

work on. I like this school. I'm glad that my children are

attending.”

“He Studied.”

Encouragement

19 “Make sure the child is enabled to learn by providing

direction, inspiration and support.”

“I motivate my son to attend school. Then show him

gratitude for all his hard work and accomplishments.”

School Related

Activities

15 “Invite parents in the class briefly to go over what a

child is learning in school. Like a mini school reteach,

refresher.”

“By participating in school events communicating with

teachers and studying with your child.”

Support 15 “A parent should always be supportive and always

encourage your child for his future well-being. I want

my child to excel in academics for his own self-esteem.”

“Show support and concern. Provide help and support.

Always express the importance of a good education.”

Overall

Involvement

14 “Help them everyday and if they have any problems on

understanding anything or what they did in school.”

“The most important thing is to be alert of all and every

need of our child.”

Figure 14 cont.

164

Category Number

of Items

Examples

Time 12 “By spending as much time with them as possible,

asking how their day went, and always making sure they

finished their homework.”

“Be available for them all the time and listen to their

needs.”

To Read

9 “For me the most important thing in their education is

their reading, because becoming a good reader helps

them on every single subject.”

“Reading is the most important principle for my

daughter's education.”

Relationship with

the Teacher

8 “Have a relationship with teacher, visit school so kids

know you are present and in contact with teacher.”

“If both teacher and parent work together.”

Attendance

6 “For her to attend school on a daily basis, and asking her

what she did at school.”

“Make sure she is there everyday and well prepared.

Help with everything regarding school.”

To Study

6 “For him to study a lot so that he can attend college and

to be a good student.”

“Pushing them to study hard and learn what they study.

Also taking them to museums and libraries.”

Prepare for

Future

5 “Prepare him for his future, visit the school, talk with the

teachers, address concerns, and talk to him about all of

the benefits of an education.”

“They are the future. I believe that we as parents need to

put more attention on our kids' education.”

Be Present

4 “Just to be there for her when she needs me. Help her in

anything she doesn't know.”

“As a father I find the most important way on helping is

by always being there, keeping track of their grades, and

always being there for them.”

Figure 14 cont.

165

Parent Tries to be

Involved in

School

4 “I try to help as much as possible. It's difficult

sometimes due to me not being fluent in English. I at

least encourage them to read at least 20 minutes per their

teacher’s advice.”

“I try to help but when I can't I ask his older brother to

help him. He helps him a lot.”

Extracurricular

2 “Allowing your child to be involved in extra-curricular

activities helps your child release energy and gives

motivation for having good grades.”

“Try to do more with him and get him into sports.”

Be Involved with

the School

2 “To help him stay focused on his work and be involved

more with school volunteering.”

“Be a volunteer at school, help with their homework on

what I can, give him confidence; talk with him about his

studies.”

Figure 14. cont.

Findings and Limitations

A correlational research design was used to analyze and identify the strength of

associations between variables. This included and analysis of the expectations and beliefs

to identify any statistically significant correlations between the subsections of the survey

and student performance. For example, there was no identified correlation between the

parent’s beliefs in how well the school communicates information and student

performance. In addition, there were no correlations found between question subtypes of

Epstein’s Six Types of Parental Involvement and a student’s achievement level.

Additionally, an analysis of the data indicates that there is no significant relationship

between any of the tested variables. The demographic variables and a parent’s level of

education were related to a parent’s level of expectations for their child. Another

interesting finding was that even though many of these data were skewed, the instrument

166

itself was supported by high levels of reliability both at the source of the original survey

as well as the implementation of the same survey in this study. In other words, even

though the data were skewed the data were still highly reliable.

In regards to the qualitative piece of data, the top two responses by teachers of the

best ways to involve parents were through Communication and After School Events and

Trainings. For parents, the top two responses for the most important way for them to be

involved were through Communication and Homework Help. Commonalities are shared

between these two perspectives. Teachers and parents both agree that communication and

some form of after school support are vital for the involvement of parents.

Throughout the analysis of research data collected, there were several conclusions

that could be made about the possible limitations of this study.

Survey reading level: Several parents listed as their education as “some high

school” or they noted that they had no education at all or only at the elementary

level. A parents reading level may have potentially limited the comprehension of

the survey questions and ability to respond accurately.

Parent survey responses were highly skewed with the selection of “1 - Strongly

Agree” which may indicate that they did not understand the survey or they circled

what they thought they were supposed to. Another possible explanation was that

the incentive motivated parents to complete the survey without fully

understanding it and the possible number of question was too high.

Since the distribution of the responses with the implemented instruments was

skewed, research should be repeated with an instrument designed and tested for

diverse educational levels and cultural backgrounds.

167

The sample was a convenience sample. The principal investigator was an

employee in the district where the research was conducted and thus some of the

participants may have known the researcher. However it is important to note, all

data used were deidentified to ensure confidentiality and protect anonymity.

Despite these findings and weaknesses there is an abundance of literature that

support involvement initiatives as having a strong correlation with student

achievement. Chapter 5 will go more into detail as to the implications and

discussion of this research.

168

V. DISCUSSION

This study investigated teachers’ and parents’ beliefs and expectations about

parental involvement and its relationship to student achievement. Historically, parental

involvement has been supported in numerous research studies as a contributor to student

achievement. This study attempted to better understand the relationship of the role

parental involvement plays in a student’s academic achievement. The results reported in

chapter four indicated that there was no relationship between teachers’ and parents’

beliefs and expectations about parental involvement however, there were demographic

variables that moderated between a parent’s expectations and student achievement

however qualitative findings related specifically to Epstein’s Type 2 form of parental

involvement of communication was reported based on parent and teacher data. In

addition, the data also signifies that because parents and teachers had high beliefs and

expectations, there is frequent interaction between the three spheres for a school, family

and community partnership where students are supported. The data supports some level

of relationship between these three spheres and the desire from both parents and teachers

to establish a relationship to support students.

As schools increase their understanding of the varying beliefs and expectations

they begin to develop the necessary skills and knowledge to form a SFCP, thus creating

effective forms for teachers and parents to support student achievement. Schools that

understand the teachers’ and parents’ beliefs and expectations of parental involvement

are more likely able to understand and implement best practices to involve families. The

goal of this study was to measure the correlational influence of beliefs and expectations

of parents and teachers, two of the major sources for a student’s achievement.

169

The findings from this study do not support the existing literature on parental

involvement as a contributor to student achievement. For example, Henderson et al.,

(2007) found that the stronger the partnership between families, communities and

schools, the more student achievement increases. When schools demonstrate they value

the opinions of parents and act upon their concerns, they tend to be highly successful in

supporting student achievement and improvement initiatives (Chrispeels, 1996). With the

data reported, it is recommended that schools use this information to reflect on their

performance, address the concerns reported by parents as well as understand the areas

they received positive responses from. In addition, even though the results of this study

did not support a relationship between the beliefs and expectations of parental

involvement and student achievement, many other benefits may exist that indirectly

support achievement such as the relationships that exists in school family and community

partnerships.

Within the Critical Realism lens, Bhaskar contends that while individuals don’t

create society, they do influence the structure. Through the actions of teachers they can

begin to transform and change an existing structure. The aim of critical realism within

this investigation was to uncover the underlying mechanisms of how parental

involvement exists and how these mechanisms shape our decisions about engaging in

parental involvement initiatives. The aim was to transform and enhance the practices of

involving parents and supporting students in order to establish a SFCP. The results of this

study may influence the belief system (the real) of lessening the important of a parental

involvement in student achievement and may support that the major factor of student

learning may be classroom instruction as an emphasis of student achievement. However,

170

it is important to note the weaknesses of this study when thinking about how the results

of this study influence ones beliefs. These beliefs influenced from the results may impact

certain practices teachers decide to implement (the actual); however, it is important to not

only take into account the weaknesses of this study but also, the other experiences of

teachers as well as the predominate literature that supports the relationship between


Although no relationship was found between the teachers’ and parents’ beliefs

and expectation about parent involvement, there is a considerable amount of research that

supports parental involvement as one of the key factors attributed to the development and

achievement of students (Albright & Weissberg, 2010; Desimone, 1999; Dixon, 1992;

Epstein & Hollifield, 1996). There is evidence of this influence at even the national level

with the nation’s goals for schools to promote parental involvement (National Education

Goals Report, 1995). In addition, the qualitative findings support Epstein’s Type 2 form

of parental involvement of communication.

Qualitative Findings

Teachers and parents both responded to similar categories about the best way for

parents to be involved. It was reported that the greatest way to involve parents was

through Communication and After School Events and Trainings. For parents, the top two

responses for the most important way for them to be involved were through

Communication and Homework Help. Teachers and parents both agree that

communication and some form of after school support are important for student

achievement. A similar finding was reported in a qualitative study investigating Latino

parents’ perceptions of parental involvement, two categories were defined based on their

171

feedback: Academic Involvement and Life Participation (Zarate, 2007). Overall, parents

responses showed that they supported their child more through Life Participation type

activities compared to being involved in their academics (Zarate, 2007). This emphasizes

the importance of making sure schools provide opportunities for teachers to implement

parental involvement initiatives that involve parents being engaged in life participation

type events and ones where parents can learn how to be involved in their child’s

academics.

In regards to communication, teachers stated, “I think it is very important to start

at the beginning of the year as a team. Parents need to know they play a large part in the

success of their students in the classroom. Teachers and parents need to be on the same

page when it comes to behavior and academic expectations.” Another teacher expressed a

level of responsibility to report to the parent, she stated “Students calling home and being

accountable to parents.” Teacher expressed that it was important to communicate with

parents not only about their child’s progress but to set expectations and also to convey the

message that a parent’s role is important in their child’s education. Teachers also felt that

further training was needed for parents to support their children. Teachers stated:

“Holding classes or meetings to show parents how to help their children at home with

their schoolwork” and “Home visits and school functions- math night, game night, movie

night, etc.” This supports the idea that teachers believe parents can be involved in their

child’s learning with the support of the school providing opportunities for parents to learn

strategies for parents to support their child’s academics.

Parents also stressed the importance of communication. Parents said, “Keeping

open lines of communication with teachers” and “Communication with your child, don't

172

diminish your child just because he/she is a child, good communication helps solve

problems.” Parents and teachers both agree that creating a bidirectional communication

exchange is valuable to their child’s learning. Parents also heavily noted as homework

being another main way to support student achievement. Parents expressed the

following: “Making sure homework is done every night and checking it, practice spelling

words for the week” and “I learn from the work she brings home. I try to help as much as

I can.” Over 100 parents cited homework help as a main way to be involved but also

throughout their responses it is noted that many parents believe that academics is a

priority and assisting with homework at home means that they support their child’s

learning at school. Fan et al. (2012) found that (1) The communication between home and

school and the guidance schools provided was positively correlated the intrinsic academic

motivation and (2) School functions that engaged parents in the educational process of

their child “sporadically affected” the motivational efficacy of students. Within the same

study parents that held aspirations for their children educational experience were

positively correlated to overall school motivation.

These findings indicate that further trainings and after school events such as the

ones posed by teachers may be beneficial for parents in their experience with supporting

their child’s learning. Although Epstein poses six different types of parental involvement,

schools at the beginning stages of developing a partnership with their families and

communities can use the data from this study to focus on specially the responses from

parents and teachers.

It is important to note that what can serve as a barrier between establishing a

SFCP are the deficit views about parents and their children from diverse backgrounds

173

(Guerra & Nelson, 2010). There was only one example of a teacher’s deficit views that

may need to be addressed at the classroom and school level. For example, a teacher said:

“I very rarely see parents at our school. I was unsuccessful at reaching 6 parents for

parent teacher conferences and had 7 scheduled conferences that no one came to. All

were rescheduled and 4 were successfully completed after the second scheduled

conference. It was October and I was feeling quite frustrated with the complete and total

lack of consideration for my schedule or interest in rescheduling. When the fall carnival

arrived, I saw almost every parent in my class. I was able to introduce myself, chat with

them briefly, and let them know that I was available for anything they needed. I really

enjoyed seeing them play with their children and enjoy themselves. They appeared to

feel really welcomed at our school that evening and I loved seeing that.”

The teacher expressed a frustration with the lack of parent conferences that were

held and she felt her time was not valued. However, when she was able to see them at a

school event she had a good experience. The teacher assumed that her parents did not

value her time instead of understanding possible reasons why they could not attend.

Ultimately she did however establish a positive connection with her parents.

The majority of teachers did not indicate a level of deficit thinking, which means

that the foundation for establishing and building a SFCP is present. For example,

teachers recognized the importance about building a relationship with parents and

welcoming them: “Keeping in touch with parents as often as possible via phone calls,

meetings, or emails. Allowing parents to come into the classroom and observe their child

and the teacher in class;” “Calling home and introducing myself when they come to

school events has been successful for me. I was a mid-year hire and this is my first year

174

teaching, so I am still learning. I would like to start next year off by encouraging parents

to become a part of our classroom and our school.”

If a parent perceives the teacher to be sensitive and understanding to the student’s

culture and family background, the parent is more likely to become involved with the

classroom. The qualitative data from teachers supports the idea that teachers have some

level of understanding how to connect with parents and involve them in the classroom

and at school. While it is not documented whether or not some of these parental

involvement ideas were put into action, the ideas and possibilities are present for future

parental involvement initiatives.

Recommendations and Further Research

Creating Social Capital in an educational setting can be developed when schools

establish a partnership with its community and families and work together in a productive

way (Epstein, 1987b). The interactions between the school, family and community

support create a web of support systems for students and improving academic

achievement and enhance communities (Epstein, 1987b). Establishing a SFCP can

capitalize on the cultural wealth of their families and empower not only the teaching

community but also their school community. Therefore initiatives that support further

developing the community and school will be discussed in the next sections.

Despite the findings of this study, schools should continue to support parental

involvement initiatives because students are more likely to demonstrate achievement

based on their parents influence to encourage and support their learning (Comer, 2005;

Epstein, 2010). It is therefore recommended based on the considerable amount of

research that identifies parent support as an attributor to student success, for schools to

175

continue to find effective and valuable ways of increasing their level of family

involvement (Davies, 2002).

While it is important to note the evidence of this study and to consider other

possible variables to student achievement, it is even more as important to consider other

research studies that have documented the relationship between parent support and


Further recommendations for future research related to this research topic would

be to provide an opportunity to conduct oral interviews. One possible explanation for the

highly skewed data of the selection of “1, Strongly Agree” on surveys by parents is that

they did not fully understand the question and selected an answer they thought was

correct. In a future study, it recommended to conduct oral interviews with future surveys

with parents to ensure the questions asked are explained clearly for the parent.

Conducting oral interviews would also provide additional valuable parent insight that was

not measured on the survey administered.

In addition, many of the parents did not have a level of education to select from

on the survey. For example, some parents wrote in “Only third grade” or “I didn’t attend

school.” To account for possible low reading levels, the researcher would provide

written surveys or questionnaires in a reading level that would accommodate the majority

of parents in the district.

A possible pre- and post- test with teachers, parents and students’ growth could

indicate the areas of influence based on the difference between scores. This would

provide insight to the effectiveness of parental involvement initiatives implemented that

school year and its effectiveness. These tests could also offer incremental change to

176

measure for improvement. Future studies could investigate other factors that impact a

student’s score such as student and teacher self-efficacy, curriculum implement, and

classroom management systems as examples.

Additional recommendations would be for schools to provide parent training

learning initiatives and develop effective strategies to create a bidirectional

communication relationship between the home and school. Based on the qualitative

responses and data, it is recommended that in order to support parents in helping their

with their child’s homework and learning, schools should provide additional afterschool

events and trainings that help parents learn strategies to help their child.

Teachers also noted that hosting the afterschool events for parents was important

however, whether or not these were being conducted was not reported. It is recommended

that school ensure that feedback from parents, teachers and students are included in the

decision making process for parent involvement initiatives. It is also suggested for

districts to seek out and provide access to community resources that will enrich families.

Also, through partnerships between the school, family and community, it is important for

districts and schools to establish and define what parental involvement looks like in the

district in order to understand and tailor parental involvement initiatives and support

student achievement and learning. Additionally, it recognized that after school trainings

and support be added or included in one of the types of Epstein’s model to encompass

parent feedback and address their concern for wanting additional opportunities to learn

strategies to support their children’s learning.

Replication of this study in other demographic areas is recommend to measure

schools of different income levels to determine if any significant correlations are found.

177

Also, it’s important to include additional qualitative pieces in order to detail a deeper

account of the parent and teacher perspective.

Lastly, it was reported that when parents have less than a high school diploma

their expectations are not related to student achievement however, when they have a high

school diploma or higher their expectations are related to the student performance.

Therefore schools should use this information to encourage and emphasize the

importance of graduation and also to support parent’s opportunities to further their

education.

The results of this study include (1) Indicate that personal interviews with parents

may help the parent understand and respond questions more accurately, (2) Indicate the

need for schools to ensure that valuable and meaningful parental involvement initiatives

are implemented with the school goal of forming a partnership between the SFCP and (3)

The results of this study can be used to reference for similar studies investigating the

relationship between teacher and parents beliefs and expectations and academic

achievement.

Conclusion

There is a limited amount of research about the beliefs and expectations teachers

and parents have relative to family involvement, as well as schools’ expectations for the

level of parents’ involvement in their child’s education, particularly in CLED

communities. The results of this study reveal that both parents and teachers have high

beliefs and expectations of parental involvement. However, there continues to be a need

to improve our understanding of the relationships between these variables and what the

impact they have on academic achievement (Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006; Trask-Tate

178

& Cunningham, 2010; Watkins, 1997). The qualitative responses support the findings

there is a strong desire or sense that better communications between parents and teachers

are needed. Despite limitations, this study provides the groundwork for continuing

exploratory research in the field of parental involvement and student achievement. Based

on the findings of this current study and research in parental involvement field, it is

important to encourage parents and teachers to form a partnership where they work

together for the success of their student. It is through this relationship where tailored and

authentic strategies can be implemented for the highest level of effectiveness. In order for

expectations to be accurate and effective, there must be effective communications

between parents and teachers.

179

APPENDIX SECTION

APPENDIX A

TEACHER SURVEY

San Marcos

The rising STAR of Texas

Consent Form

A copy of this consent form will be emailed to you for your records. IRB Approval number: Application

#EXP2014G570189B, granted IRB status on (2/18/2014)

This is an invitation to participate in a study about the beliefs and expectations

teachers and parents have regarding parental involvement and how it correlates with

student academic achievement on the Reading STAAR Exam. This form provides

information about the quantitative study in which you are agreeing to participate. The aim

of this study is to collect and analyze data from teacher and parent surveys, and student

academic Reading STAAR scores and make recommendations for improving school-

parent partnerships with the purpose of supporting students’ achievement and well-being.

Title of the Study: Teachers’ and Parents’ Beliefs and Expectations of Parental

Involvement and How It Relates to Student Academic Achievement.

Researcher: Jennifer Garcia, Doctoral Candidate in School Improvement at

Texas State University, San Marcos, Phone number: (512) 386-3431; email:

[email protected]

180

Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Robert Reardon, Associate Professor Adult Education,

Texas State University, San Marcos. Phone number: (512) 245-3755; email:

[email protected]

Purpose of the study:

The purpose of this correlational quantitative study is to examine the expectations

and beliefs teachers and parents have regarding the importance of parental

involvement, and how teachers and parents should be involved in parental

involvement initiatives that support student achievement and well-being.

Schools that understand the perspective of parental involvement from both the

school and family stakeholders viewpoints are more likely to be able to

understand and implement best practices to involve families. This understanding

of the parental involvement expectations and beliefs can then be used to create

and develop a School, Family and Community Partnership (SFCP) where a

collaborative relationship is developed between the school, family and community

to support students.

This study will also analyze how these beliefs and expectations relate to student

academic achievement (STAAR Reading Scores). The purpose of examining

achievement is to understand the correlation between teacher and parent

perspectives towards parental involvement and how it relates to students’

achievement.

What is expected of you as a study participant? Participation in this study requires completion of a 15 to 20 minute survey and access to your students’ demographic information and Reading STAAR scores for this academic school year.

A copy of this consent form will be emailed to you for your records. Confidentiality and privacy protections:

The data resulting from your participation will be used for educational purposes and possible publication. However, the data will contain no identifying information that could associate you with it. Each participant will receive an identification code to protect his or her anonymity.

All documents and any other associated written material will be given an identification code as well.

Data will be stored to ensure that it is secure and remains confidential. All data will be destroyed three years after the study is conducted. What are the risks of participating? The design of this research study has

been developed with minimal risks to participants. Participants may experience a loss of time to take the survey, which may cause

discomfort or inconvenience for some individuals.

mailto:[email protected]

181

There is little to no likelihood of any physical risk as a result of participation in

this research project. Participants are not asked to perform any tasks as a part of

the survey or collection of data that could result in physical harm.

Teachers and parents will be asked to provide information about their

expectations and beliefs about parental involvement and demographic data. These

questions may cause a potential low psychological risk if participants are upset by

questions that ask them to think about their own experiences related to the content

that is unsettling. If necessary, participants may seek counseling service at Travis

County Integral Care (ATCIC) at 512 472-HELP or online at

www.integralcare.org. Please understand that you will be responsible for any fees

related to this service.

What are the benefits of participating? Benefits for the participants: By participating in this study, you will have

an opportunity to provide feedback about the beliefs and expectations of parental involvement, which may contribute and guide current and future action plans to improve parental involvement initiatives.

Benefits for the education field: This study can inform practice and theory related to educational institutions and their practices of creating and developing parent involvement initiatives. It may also contribute to the existing body of knowledge and future studies in the field of education.

o Correlational data relating to the relationship between teachers’ and parents’ expectations and beliefs of parental involvement and a student’s reading STAAR score will be reported which may be used to support student achievement.

Is there any compensation for participating? This study is funded by the

researcher. Consenting teacher participants will receive a $20.00 gift card. How can I discontinue participating and whom should I contact if I have any

questions? How can I discontinue participating and whom should I contact if I have any questions? This project #EXP2014G570189B was approved by the Texas State IRB on 2/18/2014. Pertinent questions or concerns about the research, research participants' rights, and/or research-related injuries to participants should be directed to the IRB chair, Dr. Jon Lasser (512-245-3413 - [email protected]) and to Becky Northcut, Director, Research Integrity & Compliance (512-245-2314 - [email protected]).

http://www.integralcare.org/


182

APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM You have been informed about this study’s purpose, procedures, and

possible benefits and risks. You have been given the opportunity to ask questions before you sign, and you have been told that you can ask other questions at any time. You voluntarily agree to participate in this study. By signing this form, you are not waiving any of your legal rights.

I have read the above document and consent to become a participant in the

research study by completing the research survey. Please print name: ______________________________________Date:_____________

Please sign name: ______________________________________

Researcher name: ______________________________________Date: _____________

Researcher signature: ___________________________________

Thank you,

Jennifer Garcia

Researcher and Doctoral Student

Texas State University-San Marcos

183

APPENDIX C

Parent Involvement Survey-A Teacher’s Perspective

The purpose of this survey is to identify and measure your beliefs and

expectations of parental involvement to gain a better understanding of the most effective

forms for schools to implement in engagement initiatives to best support student

achievement. All responses and information on this survey are confidential and

anonymous. The researcher is conducting this survey in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Texas State University – San

Marcos.

Please follow the directions below:

Directions: The following questions ask for your professional judgment about

parental involvement. Please Circle the one choice for each item that best represents your

opinion and experience.

Strongly

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

1. Parent involvement is important for a good school. 1 2 3 4

2. Most parents know how to help their children on

schoolwork at home.

1 2 3 4

3. This school has an active and effective parent

organization (e.g PTA or PTO).

1 2 3 4

4. Every family has some strengths that could be tapped

to increase student success in school.

1 2 3 4

5. All parents could learn ways to assist their children on

schoolwork at home, if shown how.

1 2 3 4

6. Parent involvement can help teachers be more

effective with more students.

1 2 3 4

7. Teachers should receive recognition for time spent on

parent involvement activities.

1 2 3 4

8. Parents of children at this school want to be involved

more than they are now at most grade levels.

1 2 3 4

9. Teachers do not have the time to involve parents in

very useful ways.

1 2 3 4

10. Teachers need in-service education to implement

effective parent involvement practices.

1 2 3 4

11. Parent involvement is important for student success

in school.

1 2 3 4

184

12.This school views parents as important partners. 1 2 3 4

13. The community values education for all students. 1 2 3 4

14. This school is known for trying new and unusual

approaches to improve the school.

1 2 3 4

15. Mostly, when I contact parents, it’s about problems

or trouble.

1 2 3 4

16. In this school, teachers play a large part in most

decisions.

1 2 3 4

17. The community supports this school. 1 2 3 4

18. Compared to other schools, this school has one of the

best school climates for teachers, students, and parents.

1 2 3 4

Directions: Teachers choose among many activities to assist their students and

families. Circle one choice to tell how important each of these is for you to conduct at

your grade level.

Not

Important

A Little

Important

Pretty

Important

Very

Important

19. Have a conference with each of my students’ parents

at least once a year.

1 2 3 4

20. Attend evening meetings, performances, and

workshops at school.

1 2 3 4

21. Contact parents about their children’s problems or

failures.

1 2 3 4

22. Inform parents when their children do something well

or improve.

1 2 3 4

23. Involve some parents as volunteers in my classroom. 1 2 3 4

24. Inform parents of the skills their children must pass

in each subject I teach.

1 2 3 4

25. Inform parents how report card grades are earned in

my class.

1 2 3 4

26. Provide specific activities for children and parents to

do to improve students’ grades.

1 2 3 4

27. Provide ideas for discussing TV shows. 1 2 3 4

28. Assign homework that requires children to interact

with parents.

1 2 3 4

29. Suggest ways to practice spelling or other skills at 1 2 3 4

185

home before a test.

30. Ask parents to listen to their children read. 1 2 3 4

31. Ask parents to listen to a story or paragraph that their

children write.

1 2 3 4

32. Work with other teachers to develop parent

involvement activities and materials.

1 2 3 4

33. Work with the community members to arrange

learning opportunities in my class.

1 2 3 4

34. Work with area businesses for volunteers to improve

programs for my students.

1 2 3 4

35. Request information from parents on their children’s

talents, interests, or needs.

1 2 3 4

36. Serve on a PTA/PTO or other school parental

involvement committee.

1 2 3 4

37. In your opinion, what is the most successful practice to involve parents that you have

used or that you have heard about? Please describe below.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

38. What is your sex? ____Male

____Female 39. Ethnicity-Are you Hispanic (Circle):

Yes or No 40. Age:

____ 20-30 years old

____ 31-40

____ 41-50

____ 51-60

____ 61 +

41. How do you describe yourself? _____Asian-American _____Black or African American _____White or Caucasian _____Hispanic or Latino(a) _____Other (please

describe)_______________________

186

42. How much formal schooling have you completed?

_____Some high school _____High school diploma/GED _____Some College _____Vocational School/Technical College _____College degree _____Graduate degree or credits

43. How many total years of teaching

experience do you have in education?

____ 0-3

____ 3-5

____ 6- 10

____ 11-15

____ 16-20

____ 21 +

44. How many years have you taught at this school?

____ 0-3

____ 3-5

____ 6- 10

____ 11-15

____ 16-20

____ 21 + Epstein, J. L. & Salinas, K. C. (1993). School and Family Partnerships: Surveys and Summaries.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.

187

APPENDIX D

PARENT SURVEY IN ENGLISH

San Marcos


Consent Form

Please keep this page as a copy for your records. IRB Approval number: Application

#EXP2014G570189B, granted IRB status on (2/18/14).

This is an invitation to participate in a study about the beliefs and expectations

teachers and parents have regarding parental involvement and how it correlates with

student academic achievement on the Reading STAAR Exam. This form provides

information about the quantitative study in which you are agreeing to participate. The aim

of this study is to collect and analyze data from teacher and parent surveys and student

academic Reading STAAR scores and make recommendations for improving school-

parent partnerships with the purpose of supporting student’s achievement and well-being.

Title of the Study: Teachers’ and Parents’ Beliefs and Expectations of Parental

Involvement and How It Relates to Student Academic Achievement.

Researcher: Jennifer Garcia, Doctoral Candidate in School Improvement at

Texas State University, San Marcos, Phone number: (512) 386-3431; email:

[email protected]

188

Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Robert Reardon, Associate Professor Adult Education,

Texas State University, San Marcos. Phone number: (512) 245-3755; email:

[email protected]

Purpose of the study:

The purpose of this correlational quantitative study is to examine the expectations

and beliefs teachers and parents have regarding the importance of parental

involvement, and how teachers and parents should be involved in parental

involvement initiatives that support student achievement and well-being.

Schools that understand the perspective of parental involvement from both the

school and family stakeholders viewpoints are more likely to be able to

understand and implement best practices to involve families. This understanding

of the parental involvement expectations and beliefs can then be used to create

and develop a School, Family and Community Partnership (SFCP) where a

collaborative relationship is developed between the school, family and community

to support students.

This study will also analyze how these beliefs and expectations relate to student

academic achievement (STAAR Reading Scores). The purpose of examining

achievement is to understand the correlation between teacher and parent

perspectives towards parental involvement and how it relates to students’

achievement.

What is expected of you as a study participant? Participation in this study requires the completion of a 15-minute survey and access to your child’s demographic school information as well as Reading STAAR scores for this academic school year.

Please keep this page as a copy for your records.

Confidentiality and privacy protections:

The data resulting from your participation will be used for educational purposes and possible publication. However, the data will contain no identifying information that could associate you with it. Each participant will receive an identification code to protect his or her anonymity.

All documents and any other associated written material will be given an identification code for all participants.

Data will be stored to ensure that it is secure and remains confidential. All data will be destroyed three years after the study is conducted. What are the risks of participating? The design of this research study has

been developed with minimal risks to participants. Participants may experience a loss of time to take the survey, which may cause a

discomfort or inconvenience for some individuals.


189

There is little to no likelihood of any physical risk as a result of participation in

this research project. Participants are not asked to perform any tasks as a part of

the survey or collection of data that could result in physical harm.

Teachers and parents will be asked to provide information about their

expectations and beliefs about parental involvement and demographic data. These

questions may cause a potential low psychological risk if participants are upset by

questions that ask them to think about their own experiences related to the content

that is unsettling. If necessary, participants may seek counseling service at Travis

County Integral Care (ATCIC) at 512 472-HELP or online at

www.integralcare.org. Please understand that you will be responsible for any fees

related to this service.

What are the benefits of participating? Benefits for the participants: By participating in this study, you will have

an opportunity to provide feedback about the beliefs and expectations of parental involvement, which may contribute and guide current and future action plans to improve parental involvement initiatives.

Benefits for the education field: This study can inform practice and theory related to educational institutions and their practices of creating and developing parent involvement initiatives. It may also contribute to the existing body of knowledge and future studies in the field of education.

o Correlational data relating to the relationship between teachers’ and parents’ expectations and beliefs of parental involvement and a student’s reading STAAR score will be reported which may be used to support student achievement.

Is there any compensation for participating? This study is funded by the

researcher. Consenting participants will be entered in a drawing to win one of three IPod Shuffles.

How can I discontinue participating and whom should I contact if I have

any questions? This project #EXP2014G570189B was approved by the Texas State IRB on 2/18/14. Pertinent questions or concerns about the research, research participants' rights, and/or research-related injuries to participants should be directed to the IRB chair, Dr. Jon Lasser (512-245-3413 - [email protected]) and to Becky Northcut, Director, Research Integrity & Compliance (512-245-2314 - [email protected]).

http://www.integralcare.org/

190

PLEASE RETURN THIS SHEET CONSENT FORM

You have been informed about this study’s purpose, procedures, and

possible benefits and risks. You have been given the opportunity to ask questions before you sign, and you have been told that you can ask other questions at any time. You voluntarily agree to participate in this study. By signing this form, you are not waiving any of your legal rights.

I have read the above document and consent to become a participant in the

research study by completing the research survey and allowing access to my student’s demographic information and STAAR Reading Score.

Please print name: ______________________________________Date: _____________

Please sign name: ______________________________________

Researcher name: ______________________________________Date: _____________

Researcher signature: ___________________________________

Thank you,

Jennifer Garcia

Researcher and Doctoral Student


191

APPENDIX E

Parent Involvement Survey

Please turn in survey on or before April 21st, 2014 to be entered in a drawing

for an IPod Shuffle

The purpose of this survey is to identify and measure your beliefs and

expectations of parental involvement to gain a better understanding of the most

effective forms for schools to implement in engagement initiatives to best support

student achievement. All responses and information on this survey are confidential

and anonymous. The researcher is conducting this survey in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Texas State University – San

Marcos. Please note: If you have multiple students at this school, please complete a

survey for each of your children only if they are in grades 3-5.

Please read the directions below:

Directions: How much do you agree or disagree with the following

statements? Circle ONE answer on each line to tell if you Strongly Agree (1), Agree

(2), Disagree (3), or Strongly Disagree (4).

Describe the school’s quality Strongly

Agree


Disagree

1. This is a very good school. 1 2 3 4

2. I feel welcome at the school. 1 2 3 4

3. I get along well with my child’s teacher(s). 1 2 3 4

4. The teachers at this school care about my child. 1 2 3 4

How well has your child’s teacher at this school done the following THIS

SCHOOL YEAR? Circle ONE answer on each line to tell if the school does this: Well

(1), OK (2), Poorly (3), or Never (4).

192

The teachers at this school… Well OK Poorly Never

5. Help me understand my child’s stage of development. 1 2 3 4

6. Tells me how my child is doing in school. 1 2 3 4

7. Asks me to volunteer at the school. 1 2 3 4

8. Explains how to check my child’s homework. 1 2 3 4

9. Sends home news about things happening at school. 1 2 3 4


math. 1 2 3 4

The teachers at this school… Well OK Poorly Never


reading/language arts. 1 2 3 4


science. 1 2 3 4

13. Provides information on community services that I

may want to use with my family. 1 2 3 4

14. Invites me to PTA/PTO meetings. 1 2 3 4

15. Assigns homework that requires my child to talk with

me about things learned in class. 1 2 3 4

16. Invites me to a program at the school. 1 2 3 4

17. Asks me to help with fundraising. 1 2 3 4

18. Has a parent-teacher conference with me. 1 2 3 4

19. Includes parents on school committees, such as

curriculum, budget, or improvement committees. 1 2 3 4

20. Provides information on community services that I

may want to attend with my child. 1 2 3 4

21. Updates me on my child’s progress. 1 2 3 4

Directions: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements

about what parents should do? Circle ONE answer on each line to tell if you Strongly

Agree (1), Agree (2), Disagree (3), or Strongly Disagree (4).

193

It’s a parent’s responsibility to…

Strongly

Agree


Disagree

22. Make sure that their child learns at school. 1 2 3 4

23. Teach their child to value schoolwork. 1 2 3 4

24. Show their child how to use things like a dictionary

or encyclopedia.

1 2 3 4

25. Contact the teacher as soon as academic problems

arise.

1 2 3 4

26. Test their child on subject taught in school. 1 2 3 4

27. Keep track of their child’s progress is school. 1 2 3 4

28. Contact the teacher if they think their child is

struggling in school.

1 2 3 4

29. Show an interest in their child’s schoolwork. 1 2 3 4

30. Help their child understand homework. 1 2 3 4

31. Know if their child is having trouble in school. 1 2 3 4

32. Read with their child. 1 2 3 4

33. Volunteer in the classroom or at school. 1 2 3 4

It’s a parent’s responsibility to… Strongly

Agree


Disagree

34. Work with their child on science homework. 1 2 3 4

35. Review and discuss the schoolwork their child brings

home. 1 2 3 4

36. Help their child with math. 1 2 3 4

37. Visit their child's school. 1 2 3 4

38. Go over spelling or vocabulary with their child. 1 2 3 4

39. Ask their child about what he/she is learning in

science. 1 2 3 4

40. Talk to their child's teacher. 1 2 3 4

41. Help their child with reading/language arts

homework. 1 2 3 4

42. Help their child understand what he/she is learning in

reading/language arts class. 1 2 3 4

43. Help their child prepare for math tests. 1 2 3 4

44. Ask their child how well he/she is doing in school 1 2 3 4

45. Go to a school event (e.g. sports, music, drama or

meeting) 1 2 3 4

194

46. Check to see if your child finished his/her homework. 1 2 3 4

47. In your opinion, what is the most important way you can be involved in

your child’s education? Please describe below.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Almost done!

Directions: The following questions will help us plan programs and activities to meet

your family’s needs. Please mark one answer for each item.

48. What is your sex? ____Male

____Female 49. Ethnicity-Are you Hispanic (Circle): Yes or No

50. Age:

____ 20-30 years old

____ 31-40

____ 41-50

____ 51-60

____ 61 +

51. How do you describe yourself?

_____Asian-American

_____Black or African American

_____White or Caucasian

_____Hispanic or Latino(a)

_____Other (please describe)

_________________________

52. How many parents/guardians live in the

household of the student?

____Single Parent home

____Two Parent Home

____Other (please describe)

________________

________________________________

53. How much formal schooling have you

completed?

_____Some high school

_____High school diploma/GED

_____Some College

_____Vocational School/Technical College

_____College degree

_____Graduate degree or credits

Reference: Sheldon, S. B. & Epstein, J. L. (2007). Parent survey on family and

community involvement in the elementary and middle grades. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Center of School, Family, and Community Partnerships.

195

APPENDIX F

PARENT SURVEY IN SPANISH

San Marcos


Forma de Consentimiento

Por favor, mantenga esta página como una copia para sus archivos.

Número de aprobación del IRB: Aplicación número #EXP2014G570189B

aceptado IRB estado en (2/18/14)

Esta es una invitación para participar en un estudio sobre las creencias y

expectativas de los maestros y los padres tienen con respecto a la participación de padres

y cómo se relaciona con el rendimiento académico estudiantil en el examen de STAAR

Lectura. Esta forma proporciona información sobre el estudio cuantitativo en el que usted

está de acuerdo en participar. El objetivo de este estudio es recopilar y analizar los datos

de las encuestas de padres y maestros y las calificaciónes de STAAR Lectura académicas

del estudiante y hacer recomendaciones para mejorar las asociaciones con la escuela y los

padres con el fin de apoyar el logro y el bienestar de los estudiantes.

Título del estudio: Las creencias y expectativas de los maestros y los padres de

participación de los padres y cómo se relacionan con el rendimiento estudiantil academic.

Investigadora: Jennifer García, candidata al doctorado en mejoramiento escolar

en Texas State University, San Marcos, número de teléfono: (512) 386-3431; email:

[email protected]

196

Patrocinador Facultad: Dr. Robert Reardon, Profesor Asociado de Educación de

Adultos de Texas State Univeristy, San Marcos. Número de teléfono: (512) 245-3755;

email: [email protected]

Objetivo del estudio:

El propósito de este estudio cuantitativo correlacional es examinar las

expectativas y creencias de los maestros y los padres tienen con respecto a la

importancia de la participación de los padres, y cómo los maestros y los padres

deben participar en las iniciativas de participación de los padres que apoyan el

logro y el bienestar del estudiante.

Las escuelas que comprenden la perspectiva de la participación de los dos, la

escuela y la familia puntos de vista, son más propensos capaz de entender e

implementar las mejores prácticas para darles participación a las familias. Esta

comprensión de las expectativas de participación de los padres y las creencias se

puede utilizar para crear y desarrollar una escuela, la familia y la sociedad

comunitaria (School, Family and Community Partnership, SFCP), donde una

colaboración relación se desarrolla entre la escuela, la familia y la comunidad

para apoyar a los estudiantes.

Este estudio también analizará cómo estas creencias y expectativas, se relacionan

con el rendimiento académico del estudiante (las calificaciónes de STAAR

Lectura). El propósito del examinar de los logros es entender la correlación entre

las perspectivas de los maestros y de los padres hacia la participación de los

padres y cómo se relaciona con el logro de los estudiantes.

¿Qué se espera de usted como participante en el estudio? La

participación en este estudio requiere la realización de una encuesta de 15 minutos y el acceso a la información demográfica de su hijo, así como las calificaciónes de STAAR Lectura para este año escolar académico.

Por favor, mantenga esta página como una copia para sus archivos.

Confidencialidad y protección de la privacidad:

Los datos resultantes de la participación será utilizada para los propósitos educativos y publicación posible. Sin embargo, los datos no contienen información de identificación que lo podría asociarse. Cada participante recibirá un código de identificación para proteger su anonimato.

• Todos los documentos y cualquier otro material escrito asociado se darán un código de identificación para todos los participantes.

• Los datos se almacenan para asegurarse de que es segura y es confidencial. Todos los datos serán destruidos tres años después se realizó el

197

estudio. ¿Cuáles son los riesgos de participar? El diseño de este estudio de investigación

se ha desarrollado con riesgos mínimos para los participantes.

• Los participantes pueden tener una pérdida de tiempo para participar en la encuesta, lo que puede causar un malestar o incomodidad para algunas personas.

• Hay poca o ninguna probabilidad de cualquier riesgo físico como resultado de la participación en este proyecto de investigación. Los participantes no se les pide realizar tareas como parte de la encuesta o recogida de datos que podrían resultar en daño físico.

• Se pedirá a los maestros y los padres para proporcionar información acerca de sus expectativas y creencias sobre la participación de los padres y de los datos demográficos. Estas preguntas pueden causar un riesgo potencial de psicológico bajo si los participantes están molestos por las preguntas que les pregunten a pensar en sus propias experiencias relacionadas con el contenido que desestabilizan. Si es necesario, los participantes podrán solicitar el servicio de asesoramiento a Travis County Integral Care (ATCIC) a 512 472-HELP o en línea en www.integralcare.org. Por favor que entienda que usted será responsable por los costos relacionados con este servicio.

¿Cuáles son los beneficios de participar?

• Beneficios para los participantes: Al participar en este estudio, usted tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar información acerca de las creencias y expectativas de participación de los padres, que pueden contribuir y guiar la acción actual y futura de los planes para mejorar las iniciativas de participación de los padres.

• Beneficios para le area de la educación: Este estudio puede informar la práctica y la teoría relacionada con las instituciones educativas y sus prácticas de creación y desarrollo de iniciativas de participación de los padres. También puede contribuir al conocimiento existente y los estudios futuros en el area de la educación.

o Datos correlacionales relativos a la relación entre las expectativas y creencias de participación de los padres de los maestros y de los padres y las calificaciónes del examen de STAAR Lectura de un estudiante serán reportados que se puede utilizar para apoyar el rendimiento estudiantil.

¿Hay alguna compensación por su participación? Este estudio está

financiado por el investigadora. Los participantes dieron su consentimiento se ingresarán en un sorteo para ganar una de las tres IPod Shuffle.

¿Cómo puedo dejar de participar y con quién debo contactar si tengo

alguna pregunta? Este proyecto # EXP2014G570189B fue aprobado por el IRB de

198

Texas State University, 2/18/14. Cuestiones pertinentes o inquietudes sobre la investigación, derechos de participantes en la investigación, y / o daños relacionadas con la investigación a los participantes deben dirigirse al presidente del IRB, el Dr. Jon Lasser (512-245-3413 - [email protected]) y Becky Northcut, Directora de Investigación de Integridad y Cumplimiento (512-245-2314 - [email protected]).

POR FAVOR DEVOLVER ESTA HOJA FORMA DE CONSENTIMIENTO

Se le ha informado sobre el propósito, los procedimientos de este

estudio y los beneficios y riesgos posibles. Se le ha dado la oportunidad de hacer preguntas antes de firmar, y le han dicho que usted puede hacer otras preguntas en cualquier momento. Usted voluntariamente acepta participar en este estudio. Al firmar este forma, usted no está renunciando ninguna de sus derechos legales.

He leído el documento y el consentimiento anterior para convertirse en un

participante en el estudio de investigación por completando la encuesta de investigación y permitir el acceso a la información demográfica de mi estudiante y las calificaciónes de STAAR Lectura.

Por favor, imprime su nombre: __________________________Fecha: _____________

Por favor , escribe su nombre: ______________________________________

Nombre del investigadora: ______________________________Fecha: _____________

La firma de la investigadora : ___________________________________

Gracias,

Jennifer García

Investigadora y Estudiante de doctorada


Encuesta de participación de los padres

Por favor entreguen encuesta en o antes 21 de abril 2014 que se debe ingresar en

el sorteo de un iPod Shuffle

El propósito de este estudio es identificar y medir sus creencias y expectativas

de participación de los padres a obtener una mejor comprensión de las formas más

199

eficaces para las escuelas para poner en práctica las iniciativas de contratación con

major apoyo rendimiento de los estudiantes. Todas las respuestas e información sobre

esta encuesta son confidenciales y anónimas. La investigadora está llevando esta

encuesta en cumplimiento parcial de los requisitos para el grado de doctor en filosofía

en Texas State Univeristy - San Marcos. Nota: Si tiene varios estudiantes en esta

escuela, por favor complete una encuesta para cada uno de sus hijos sólo si están en

los grados 3-5.

Por favor devuelva en o antes del 21 de abril 2014 que debe ingresar en el

sorteo de un iPod Shuffle.

Por favor, lea las instrucciones de abajo:

Instrucciones: ¿Cuánto está usted de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con las

siguientes afirmaciones? Círculo UNA respuesta en cada línea de saber si usted:

SÍ quiere decir que Ud. está totalmente de acuerdo con la oración.

sí quiere decir que Ud. está de acuerdo con la oración.

no quiere decir que Ud. está en desacuerdo con la oración.

NO quiere decir que Ud. está totalmente en desacuerdo con la oración.

S

Í

sí n

o

N

O

1. Esta escuela es muy buena. 1 2 3 4

2. Me siento bienvenido en la escuela. 1 2 3 4

3. Me llevo bien con el maestro (s) de mi hijo/a. 1 2 3 4

4. Los/as maestros/as se interesan por mi hijo/a. 1 2 3 4

200

¿Qué tan bien ha maestro de su hijo en esta escuela hecho lo siguiente ESTE

AÑO ESCOLAR? Círculo UNA respuesta en cada línea para saber si la escuela hace

esto: Bueno (1), OK (2), Mal (3) o Nunca (4).

Los maestros en esta escuela ... Bueno OK Mal Nunca

5. Me ayudan a entender la etapa de desarrollo de mi

hijo/a. 1 2 3 4

6. Me dicen como va mi hijo/a en la escuela. 1 2 3 4

7. Me piden que sea voluntario en la escuela. 1 2 3 4

Los maestros en esta escuela ... Bueno OK Mal Nunca

8. Explican cómo comprobar la tarea de mi hijo/a. 1 2 3 4

9. Me envian noticias de lo que pasa en la escuela. 1 2 3 4

10. Me dicen qué habilidades mi hijo/a necesita aprender

en:

matemáticas.

1 2 3 4

11. lectura / lenguaje. 1 2 3 4

12. ciencia. 1 2 3 4

13. Me dan información sobre los servicios de la

comunidad que podría utilizer. 1 2 3 4

14. Me invitan a los reunions de PTA/PTO. 1 2 3 4

15. Ponen tareas escolares que requieren que mi hijo/a

hable conmigo sobre lo que aprendió en la clase. 1 2 3 4

16. Me invitan a los programs en la escuela. 1 2 3 4

17. Me piden ayuda con actividades para recaudar

fondos. 1 2 3 4

18. Tienen conferencias conmigo. 1 2 3 4

19. Incluyen a los padres en los comites como los de

curriculo, presupuesto, o en el mejoramiento escolar. 1 2 3 4

20. Me dan información sobre los servicios de la

comunidad que podría asistir con mi hijo/a. 1 2 3 4

21. Me actualizan sobre el progreso de mi hijo 1 2 3 4

201

Instrucciones: ¿Cuánto está usted de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con las

siguientes afirmaciones sobre lo que los padres deben hacer? Círculo UNA respuesta

en cada línea de saber si usted:

SÍ quiere decir que Ud. está totalmente de acuerdo con la oración.

sí quiere decir que Ud. está de acuerdo con la oración.

no quiere decir que Ud. está en desacuerdo con la oración.

NO quiere decir que Ud. está totalmente en desacuerdo con la oración.

Es la responsabilidad de los padres a ...

SÍ sí no NO

22. Asegúrense de que su hijo/a aprende en la escuela. 1 2 3 4

23. Enseñan a su hijo/a a valorar el trabajo escolar. 1 2 3 4

24. Muestran su hijo/a cómo usar cosas como un

diccionario o enciclopedia.

1 2 3 4

25. Hablan al maestro tan pronto como surgen

problemas académicos.

1 2 3 4

Es la responsabilidad de los padres a ...

SÍ sí no NO

26. Pon a prueba a su hijo/a en materias enseñadas en

la escuela.

1 2 3 4

27. Conozcan el progreso de su hijo/a en la escuela. 1 2 3 4

28. Hablan al maestro si piensan que su hijo/a tiene

dificultades en la escuela.

1 2 3 4

29. Muestran un interés en el trabajo escolar de su

hijo/a.

1 2 3 4

30. Ayudan a su hijo/a a entender la tarea. 1 2 3 4

31. Sepan si su hijo/a está teniendo problemas en la

escuela.

1 2 3 4

32. Leen con su hijo/a. 1 2 3 4

33. Ser un voluntario en el salón de clases o en la

escuela.

1 2 3 4

34. Trabajan con su hijo/a en la tarea de ciencias. 1 2 3 4

35. Revisan y discuten el trabajo escolar que su hijo/a

trae a casa.

1 2 3 4

202

36. Ayudan a su hijo/a con las matemáticas. 1 2 3 4

37. Visitan la escuela de su hijo/a. 1 2 3 4

38. Repasan la ortografía o el vocabulario con su

hijo/a.

1 2 3 4

39. Preguntan a su hijo/a sobre lo que él / ella está

aprendiendo en la ciencia.

1 2 3 4

40. Hablan con el maestro de su hijo/a. 1 2 3 4

41. Ayudan a su hijo/a con la tarea de lectura / artes

del lenguaje.

1 2 3 4

42. Ayudan a su hijo/a a entender lo que él / ella está

aprendiendo en la ciencia.

1 2 3 4

43. Ayudan a su hijo/a a prepararse para los exámenes

de matemáticas.

1 2 3 4

44. Preguntan a su hijo/a lo bien que él / ella está

haciendo en la escuela.

1 2 3 4

45. Van a un evento de la escuela (por ejemplo- los

deportes, la música, el teatro o una reunión)

1 2 3 4

46. Verifican si su hija terminó su tarea. 1 2 3 4

47. En su opinión, ¿cuál es la manera más importante que usted le da

participación en la educación de su hijo/a? Por favor, describa abajo.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

¡Ya estamos casi terminados!

Instrucciones: Las siguientes preguntas ayudaramos a planificar los programas

y actividades para satisfacer las necesidades de su familia. Por favor marque una

respuesta para cada.

48. ¿Cuál es su sexo? ____Hombre ____ 49. Origen étnico- ¿Es usted

203

Mujer hispano?(círculo): (Círculo): Sí o No

50. Edad: ____ 20-30 años

____ 31-40

____ 41-50

____ 51-60

____ 61 +

51. ¿Cómo le describe a Ud.?

_____ Asiáticoamericano/a

_____Black o afroamericano/a

_____White o caucásico/a

_____Hispano o latino/a

_____Otro (por favor describa)

_______________________

52. ¿Cuántos padres / guardiánes

viven en el hogar del estudiante?

____Uno

____Dos

____Otro (por favor describa)

______________________________________

53. ¿Cuánta educación formal ha

completado?

_____Un poco de la escuela secundaria

_____Diploma de la escuela

secundaria/GED

_____ Un poco de la universidad

_____ Escuela profesional / escuela

técnica

_____ Título de la universidad

_____ Título de postgrado o créditos

¡Muchas gracias por su participación!

Por favor devuelva esta encuesta y forma de consentimiento con su hijo a

dar su maestro.

Reference: Sheldon, S. B. & Epstein, J. L. (2007). Parent survey on family and community

involvement in the elementary and middle grades. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Center of School,

Family, and Community Partnerships.

204

APPENDIX G

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

213

APPENDIX H

IRB APPROVAL

Institutional Review Board

Request For Exemption

Certificate of Approval

Applicant: Jennifer Garcia

Request Number : EXP2014G570189B

Date of Approval: 02/18/14

214

REFERENCES

Abdul-Adil, J. K, & Farmer, A. D. (2006). Inner-city African American parental

engagement in elementary schools: Getting beyond urban legends of apathy.

School Psychology Quarterly, 27(1), 1-12.

Administration/Policy Council/Parent Involvement, (2000). Do you know the history of

parent involvement? It hasn’t always been what it is today. Retrieved from

http://www.umchs.org/umchsresources/administration/pchandbook/Parent_Involv

ement.pdf

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &

National Council on Measurement in Education, (1999). Standards for

educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Published

Research Association.

Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, VA:

ASCD.

Albright, M. I., & Weissberg, R. P. (2010). Family-school partnerships to promote social

and emotional learning. In Christenson, S. L., & Reschly, A. L. (Eds.), Handbook

of School–Family Partnerships (pp. 246-265). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bartle, V. B., (2010). Home and school factors impacting parental involvement in a title I

elementary school. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24, 209-228.

Barley, Z. A., & Beesley, A. D. (2007). Rural school success: What can we learn?

Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22, 1-16.

Bauch, P. A., & Goldring, E. B. (2000). Teacher work context and parent involvement in

urban high schools of choice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(1), 1-23.

http://www.umchs.org/umchsresources/administration/pchandbook/Parent_Involvement.pdf

http://www.umchs.org/umchsresources/administration/pchandbook/Parent_Involvement.pdf

215

Becerra, D. (2012). Perceptions of educational barriers affecting the academic

achievement of Latino K-12 students. Children & Schools, 34(3), 167-177.

Beimers, J.N., Way, W.D., McClarty, K.L., & Miles, J.A. (2012). Evidence based

standard setting: Establishing cut scores by integrating research evidence with

expert content judgments. Pearson Bulletin, 21. Retrieved from

www.pearsonassessments.com

Becker, H.J., & Epstein, J.L. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices.

The Elementary School Journal, 83(2), 85-102.

Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to contemporary

philosophy. London, UK: Verso.

Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. London, UK: Routledge.

Blank, M. J., Jacobson, R., Melaville, A., & Center for American Progress, (2012).

Achieving results through community school partnerships: How district and

community leaders are building effective, sustainable relationships. Retrieved

from http://www.americanprogress.org/

Bireda, S., & Chait, R. (2011). Center for American progress: Increasing Teacher

Diversity. Strategies to Improve the Teacher Workforce, Retrieved from:

http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2011/11/pdf/chait_dive

rsity.pdf

Boivin, M., Dionne, G., Forget-Dubois, N., Lemelin, J. P., Persusse, D., Tremblay, R. E.

(2009). Early child language mediates the relation between home environment

and school readiness. Child Development, 80(3), 736-749.

Boers, D. (2002). What teachers need of parents? The Education Digest, 67 (8), 37-40.

http://www.americanprogress.org/

http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2011/11/pdf/chait_diversity.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2011/11/pdf/chait_diversity.pdf

216

Bower, H., & Griffin, D. (2011). Can the Epstein model of parental involvement work in

a high-minority, high-Poverty elementary school? A case study. Professional

School Counseling, 15(2), 77-87.

Bradley, C., Johnson, P., Rawls, G., & Dodson-Sims, A. (2005). School counselors

collaborating with African American parents. Professional School Counseling, 8,

424-427.

Capp, G. R. (1967). The great society: A sourcebook of speeches. Belmont, CA:

Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc.

Center for American Progress, (2011). Increasing teacher diversity: Strategies to improve

the teacher workforce. Retrieved from:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/11/09/10636/incre

asing-teacher-diversity/

Chavkin, N. F., & Williams, D. L., Jr. (1987). Enhancing parents’ involvement:

Guidelines for access to an important resource for school administrators.

Education and Urban Society, 19, 164-184.

Chrispeels, J. (1996). Effective schools and home-school-community partnership roles: A

framework for parent involvement. School Effectiveness & School Improvement,

7(4), 297-323.

Clark, R. (1990). Homework-focused parenting practices that positively affect student

achievement. In N. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society

(pp. 75-93). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism: An introduction to the philosophy of Roy Bhaskar.

London, UK: Verson.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/11/09/10636/increasing-teacher-diversity/

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/11/09/10636/increasing-teacher-diversity/

217

Comer, J. P. (2001). Schools that develop children. The American Prospect, 12(7), 3-12.

Comer, J. P. (2005). The rewards of parent participation. Educational Leadership, 62(6),

38-42.

Cotton, K., & Wicklund, D. (2006). Parent involvement in education: School

improvement research. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.html

Crane, J. (1996). Effects of home environment, SES, and material test scores on

mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 305-314.

Crawford, E., & Torgesen, J. (2006). Teaching all students to read: Practices from

reading first schools with strong intervention outcomes. Retrieved from

http://www.ieanea.org/media/teachingAllStudentsToRead.pdf

Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., Karlsson, J. C. (1997). Explaining society:

Critical realism in the social sciences. London, UK: Routledge.

Dauber, S. L. & Epstein, J. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent

involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School

Journal, 91(3), 289.

Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in

inner city elementary and middle schools. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and

schools in a pluralistic society (pp.53-71). Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press.

Davies, D., Upton, J., Clasby, M., Baxter, F., Powers, B., & Zerchkov, B. (1979). Federal

and state impact on citizen participation in the schools. Boston, MA: Institute for

Responsive Education.

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.html

http://www.ieanea.org/media/teachingAllStudentsToRead.pdf

218

Davies, D. (1988). Parent involvement in the public schools: opportunities for

administrators. Education and Urban Society, 19(2), 147-163.

Davies, D. (2002). The 10th school revisited: Are school/family/community partnerships

on the reform agenda now? Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 388–392.

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and

income matter? The Journal of Education Research, 93, 11.

Dixon, A. (1992). Parents: Full partners in the decision-making process. National

Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 76, 15-17.

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: assessing the effectiveness of parental

involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78, 233-249.

Eccles, J., & Harold, R. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent

years. Teachers College Record, 94(3), 568-587.

Egbo, B. (2005). Emergent paradigm: Critical realism and transformative research in

education administration. Mcgill Journal of Education, 4 (2), 267-284.

Epstein, J. (1986). Parents' reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement.

Elementary School Journal, 86(3), 277-294.

Epstein, J. L. (1987a). What principals should know about parent involvement. Principals

66(3), 6-9.

Epstein, J. L. (1987b). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices

and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. X. Kaufmann, & F. Lasel (Eds.),

Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). New York, NY:

Walter de Gruyter.

219

Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implication

for integrating sociologies of education and family. In D.G. Unger and M.B.

Sussman (Eds.) Families in community settings: Interdisciplinary perspectives.

New York, NY: Haworth Press.

Epstein, J. L. & Salinas, K. C., (1993). School and family partnerships: Questionnaires

for teachers and parents in elementary and middle grades teachers. Baltimore,

MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center on Families, Communities, Schools and

Children’s Learning.

Epstein, J. L. & Hollifield, J. H. (1996). Title I and school-family-community

partnerships: Using research to realize the potential. Journal of Education for

Students Placed at Risk, 1(3), 263-278.

Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school,

family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth and J.F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-

school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 209-246). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parental

involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School

Journal, 91, 289-305.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators

and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers' roles in

designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181-193.

220

Epstein, J. L., & Salinas. K. (2004). Partnering with families and communities.

Educational Leadership, 61(8). 12-18.

Epstein, J. L. (2005). Attainable goals? The spirit and letter of the no child left behind act

on parental involvement. Sociology of Education, 78(2), 179-182.

Epstein, J. L. (2010). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we

share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81-96.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N.

R., . . . Williams, K.J., (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your

handbook for action, third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers' roles in

designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181-193.

Evans, M. D. R., Kelley J., Sikora J., & Treiman, D. H. (2010). Family scholarly culture

and educational success: Books and schooling in 27 nations. Research in Social

Stratification and Mobility, 28, 171-197.

Fan, W., Williams, C. M., & Wolters, C. A. (2012). Parental involvement in predicting

school motivation: similar and differential effects across ethnic groups. Journal of

Educational Research, 105(1), 21-35.

Faulstich Orellana, M. (2003). In other words: en otras palabras: learning from bilingual

kids’ translating/interpreting experiences. Evanston, IL: School of Education and

Social Policy, Northwestern University.

Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A

hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.

International Journal of Qualitative methods, 5(1), 1-11.

221

Fields-Smith, C. (2007). Social class and African-American parental involvement. In J.

A. Van Galen & G.W. Noblit (Eds.), Late to class: Social class and schooling in

the new economy (pp. 167-202). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in

education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Franklin, V.P. (2002). Introduction: Cultural capital and African-American education.

The Journal of African-American History, 87, 175-181.

Freeman, M. (2010).'Knowledge is acting’: Working-class parents' intentional acts of

positioning within the discursive practice of involvement. International Journal of

Qualitative Studies in Education, 23,181-198.

Fullan, M. (1993). Changing forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London,

UK: Falmer.

García, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with

educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban

Society, 36(2), 150-168.

Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A

longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents' aspirations and expectations, and

their children's school performance. American Educational Research Journal,

38(3), 547–582.

Gonzalez-Mena, J. (1994). From a parent’s perspective. Salem, WI: Sheffield.

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of

parental involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology,

89, 538–548.

222

Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and practice in parent

involvement: Implications for teacher education. Elementary School Journal,

91(3), 279.

Guerra, P. L. & Nelson, S. W. (2009). For diverse families, parent Involvement takes on

a new meaning. Journal of Staff Development, 30 (4), 65-66.

Guerra, P.L., Nelson, S. W. (2010). Use a systematic approach for deconstructing and

reframing deficit thinking. Journal of Staff Development, 31(2), 55-56.

Gutman, L., M., & Mcloyd V. C. (2000). Parents’ management of their children’s

education within the home, at school, and in the community: An examination of

African-American families living in poverty. The Urban Review, 32, 1-24.

Head Start Manual, (1980). A Handbook for involving parents in head start. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Health Education.

Henderson, A. T., and Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of

school, family and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX:

National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools.

Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake

sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York, NY: The New

Press.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2010). Involving low-income parents and parents of color in

college readiness activities: an exploratory study. Professional School

Counseling, 14(1), 115-24.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C, & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent-

school relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287-294.

223

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s

education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310–

331.

Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their

children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3-42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Jones, K. P., & Reed, R. P. (2002). Teachers

involving parents (TIP): Results of an in-service teacher education program for

enhancing parental involvement. Teacher and Teacher Education, 18, 843-867.

Hoover-Dempsey, K., Walker, J., Sandler, H., Whetsel, D., Green, C., Wilkins, A., &

Losson, K. (2005).Why do parents become involved? Research findings and

implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–130.

Isaac, S. & Michael, W.B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation: For education

and the behavioral sciences. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing

Services.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005a). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban

elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237-

269.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005b). The effects of parental involvement on the academic achievement

of African American youth. Journal of Negro Education, 74(3), 260-274.

Karther, D. E., & Lowden, F. Y. (1997). Fostering effective parent involvement.

Contemporary Education, 69(1), 41.

Kurki, M. (2007). Critical realism and causal analysis in international relations. Journal

of International Studies, 35, 361-378.

224

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The

importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73- 85.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary

education. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.

Lareau, A. (1996). Assessing parent involvement in schooling: A critical analysis. In

Booth, & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational

outcomes? (pp. 57-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race,

class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education,

72(1), 37–53.

Lines, C., Miller, G. E., & Arthur-Stanley, A. (2011). The power of family-school

partnering: A practical guide for school mental health professionals and

educators. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Lee, J., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the

achievement gap among elementary school children. American Education

Research Journal, 43, 193-218.

Lewis, L. L, Kim, Y. A., Juanita, A.B. (2011). Teaching practices and strategies to

involve inner-city parents at home and in the school. Teacher and Teacher

Education, 27 221-234.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for

every teacher. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

225

Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable

and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children.

American Psychologist, 53, 205–220.

McDermott, P. C., & Rothenberg, J. J. (April, 2001). New teachers communicating

effectively with low-income urban parents. Paper presented at the meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2010). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods:

Practical application and interpretation. Glendale, CA: Pyrcak Publishing.

Michigan Department of Education. (2001). What research says about parent

involvement in children’s education: In relation to academic achievement.

Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Final_Parent_Involvement_

Fact_Sheet_14732_7.pdf

Miedel, W. T. & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for

disadvantaged children: does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379-

402.

Miretzky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent

teacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106 (4),

814-851.

Moles, O. C. (1993). Collaboration between school and disadvantaged parents: obstacles

and openings. In N. K. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a plural-istic

society, 21-49. Albany, NY: Sate University of New York Press.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Final_Parent_Involvement_

226

Moll, L., Amandi, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:

Using a qualitative approach to connect home and classrooms. Theory Into

Practice, 21(2), 132-141.

Morris, V. G., & Taylor, S. I. (1998). Alleviating barriers to family involvement in

education: The role of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(2),

219-231.

Myers, S. S. (1991). Performance in reading comprehension-product or process?

Educational Review, 43(3), 257–272.

Mueller, C. W., & Parcel, T. L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives

and recommendations. Child Development, 52(1), 13‐30.

Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in

socioeconomically disadvantaged areas – a review of research evidence. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 149-175.

National Archives, (1995). Records of the community services administration. Retrieved

from http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/381.html#381.2

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Fathers’ involvement of their children’s

school. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98091.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004) Characteristics of schools, districts,

teachers, principals, and schools libraries in the United States, 2003–04: Schools

and Staffing Survey, Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006313.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). National assessment of education

progress (NAEP). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

studies/gaps.

http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/381.html#381.2

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98091.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006313.pdf

227

National Institute For Early Education Research, (2011). The state of preschools in 2011.

Retrieved from: http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/2011yearbook.pdf

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, (2000). From Neurons to

Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC:

Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). (2002). No child left behind act. Pub. L. No. 107-110,

115 Stat. 1425.

Norwood, P. M., Atkinson, S. E., Tellez, K., & Saldana, D. C. (1997). Contextualizing

parent education programs in urban schools: The impact on minority parents and

students. Urban Education, 32, 411-432.

Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children's school

performance. Child Development, 64, 36-56.

Oliver, M. & Shapiro, T. (1995). Black wealth/White wealth: A new perspective on racial

inequality. New York, NY: Routledge.

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: A

research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1039-1104.

Pew Center for the States, (2007). Pre-k now. Retrieved from

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/pre-k-now-328067

Pianta, R. (2006). Children enrolled in public pre-k: The relation of family life,

neighborhood quality, and socioeconomic resources to early competence.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(2), 265-276

http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/2011yearbook.pdf

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/pre-k-now-328067

228

Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why

of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better.

Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 373-410.

Public Law, (2002). Public Law 107-110: An act. 107th

Congress. Retrieved from:

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,

42(1), 185-227.

Ramirez, A. Y. (2001). Parent involvement is like apple pie: A look at parental

involvement in two states. The High School Journal, 85(1), 1-9.

Ramirez, F. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latino

immigrant parents. The Urban Review, 35, 93–105.

Reese, L. (2002). Parental strategies in contrasting cultural settings: Families in Mexico

and “el Norte.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22, 30-59.

Rumberger, R. W., Ghatak, R., Poulos, G., Ritter, P. L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1990).

Family influences on dropout behavior in one California high school. Sociology of

Education, 63(4), 283-299.

Schaefer, E. S., & Edgerton, M. (1985). Parent and child correlates of parental modernity.

In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: the psychological consequences for

children (pp. 287-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

229

Seitsinger, A. M., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., & Burns, A. (2008). A large-scale

examination of the nature and efficacy of teachers’ practices to engage parents:

assessment, parental contact, and student-level impact. Journal of School

Psychology, 46, 477-505.

Sénéchal, M., & Laura, Y. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on

children's acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic

review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 880-907.

Shartrand, A. M., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H. M., & Lopez, M. E. (1997). New skills for

new schools: Preparing teachers in family involvement. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Family Research Project.

Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. T. (1998). Effect of Title I parent involvement on student

reading and mathematics achievement. Journal of Research and Development in

Education, 31, 90-97.

Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent

involvement. Elementary School Journal, 102, 301–316.

Sheldon, S. B. (April, 2006). Parents’ social networks as predictors of parent

involvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association in San Francisco, CA.

Sheldon, S. B. & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community

partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,

98(4), 196-207.

230

Sheldon, S. B., & Van Voorhis, V. L. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their

development and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 125-148.

Sheldon, S. B. (August, 2007). The role of parents’ social networks in children’s

schooling: Whose social capital is it? Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Sociological Association, New York, NY.

Sheldon, S. B. & Epstein, J. L. (2007). Parent survey on family and community

involvement in the elementary and middle grades. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University Center of School, Family, and Community Partnerships.

Shumow, L., & Miller, J. D. (2001). Parents’ at-home and at-school academic

involvement with young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 68–91.

Sheldon, S. B. & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community

partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,

98(4), 196-207.

Sheldon, S. B. (In press). Testing a structural equations model of partnership program

implementation and family involvement. Elementary School Journal.

Simon, B. S., (2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of

Education, 7, 185–209.

Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Seattle,

WA: Dissertation Success, LLC.

Simoni, J. M. & Adelman, H. S. (1993). School-based mutual support groups for low-

income parents. Urban Review, 25, 335-350.

231

Smrekar, C., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2001). The voices of parents: rethinking the

intersection of family and school. Peabody Journal of Education, 76, 75-100.

SPSS Inc. Released 2009. PASW Statistics for Windows, Version 18.0. Chicago: SPSS

Inc.

Swick, K. (2004). Empowering parents, families, schools and communities during the

early childhood years. Champaign, IL: Stipes.

Souto-Manning, M., & Swick, K (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about parent and family

involvement. Rethinking our family involvement paradigm. Early Childhood

Educational Journal, 34, 187-193.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell,L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th

ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson.

Texas Education Agency (TEA, 2010). Comprehensive annual report on texas public

schools. Retrieved from: www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=4133

Texas Education Agency (TEA), (2012a). Academic excellence indicator system.

Retrieved from: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker

Texas Education Agency (TEA), (2012b). TEA brochures. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147485434&menu_id=692&menu_id

2=79 &cid=2147483661

Texas Education Agency (TEA), (2012c). Performance standards for STAAR to be

phased in. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4_wide.aspx?id=214750633

Texas Education Agency (TEA), (2013). STAAR performance standards. Retrieved from

www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/performance-standards/

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=4133

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4_wide.aspx?id=214750633

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/performance-standards/

232

Texas Education Agency (TEA), (2014). Performance reporting division. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.stat.tx.us/perfreport/

Trask-Tate, A. J., & Cunningham, M. (2010). Planning ahead: The relationship among

school support, parental involvement, and future academic expectations in

African American adolescents. Journal of Negro Education, 79(2), 137-150.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trumbull, E., Rothstein, C., Quiroz, B., & Greenfield, P. (2001). Bridging cultures

between home and school. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

United States Census Bureau. (2010). State and county quick facts. Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html

U.S. Department of Education. (1983a). A nation at risk. Appendix A. Retrieved from

http://www.edu.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/appenda.html

U.S. Department of Education. (1983b). A nation at risk. Appendix C. Retrieved from


U.S. Department of Education, (2004). Elementary & secondary education, Title I-

Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2011-2014.

Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.txstate.edu/PDFS/ED529722.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA title I LEA allocations- FY 20 U.S.

Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy11/index.html

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html



http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy11/index.html

233

Vaden-Kiernan, N., Chandler, K., & Westat, Inc. (1996). National center for education

statistics: Parents' reports of school practices to involve families. Retrieved from

nces.ed.gov/pubs/97327.pdf

Varnell, J. (2006). The perceptions of highly successful southern California elementary

teachers regarding their success in teaching reading in classrooms with a large

majority of low-socio-economic status Latino students. Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses online resource. (UMI No. 3207571)

Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational

Leadership, 41, 19-27.

Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K.

V. (2005). Parental involvement: model revision through scale development.

Elementary School Journal, 106, 85-104.

Watkins, T. (1997). Teacher communications, child achievement, and parent traits in

parent involvement models. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 3-14.

Willems, P., & Gonzalez-DeHass, A. (2012). Schoolcommunity partnerships: Using

authentic contexts to academically motivate students. School Community Journal,

22(2), 9-30.

Xu, M., Benson, K. S., Mudrey-Camino, R., & Steiner, R. (2010). The relationship

between parental involvement, self-regulated learning, and reading achievement

of fifth graders: A path analysis using the ECLS-K database. Social Psychology of

Education, 13(2), 237-269.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of

community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education 8(1), 69-91.

234

Zarate, M. E. (2007). Understanding Latino parental involvement in education:

Perceptions, expectations and recommendations. Los Angeles, CA: Tomás Rîvera

Policy Institute.

garcia dissertation 2014 - texas state university

Documents